[NCUC-DISCUSS] URGENT - Time sensitive What is your view on on the question of rebalancing the Nominating Committee (NomCom)
Stephanie E Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Tue Jun 27 02:48:07 CEST 2023
Okay folks. I added the proposal to match the other side of the House.
Attached is a draft word document. I think if we are going to die on
the hill labelled 3 seats, we should have asked for 3 seats in the
comments prepared by Judith, and that ship has sailed. However, I have
added it to this draft.
I took the proposal to take GAC's seat out because I really think the
Board is not likely to entertain that proposal. If you want it back
in, make the argument as to why they should lose it....I dont think the
fact that it is an advisory body holds enough water.....Alac has 5 reps
and they are advisory.
On 2023-06-26 8:36 p.m., Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele wrote:
> @farzaneh badii <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> thank you for your
> thoughts. Stephanie started the draft and I made some modest
> contributions into the draft. Since Stephanie is the primary pen
> holder and I'm a contributing pen holder, I will let her have the
> honor of sharing the document when she is able to conclude the review.
>
> Now Stephanie and I did some fact-finding/research across the aisle
> and what we discovered that the best way to approach this is to first
> make a case that NPOC gets a seat as earlier mentioned since NCSG is
> the mothership to both constituencies. I do share your concerns and if
> you follow some of the old conversations, ICANN is not ready to do a
> substantial change to the bylaws but to see how we can move a bit of
> things around while not getting opposition for our strategy from the
> other side of the aisle.
>
> Ordinarily, BC has two seats for Big and Small businesses, GAC has a
> seat they are not using. BC will definitely not give up one of the
> seats when we start saying three seats for NCSG. One good way to look
> at this is to also approach this through the council which I'm aware a
> diplomatically worded statement has been passed across.
>
> We need a better way of getting the message across and not asking for
> too much as we still have the Holistic review coming up.
>
> Caleb
>
>
> @Stephanie Perrin <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> thanks
> for providing clarity.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 6:30 PM farzaneh badii
> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I absolutely disagree to make this a constituency matter. It is
> the card that they played for so long to argue that we didnt have
> as many constituency. As stakeholder group, if they have 3 reps we
> should have 3 reps. If we have one as stakeholder group they
> should have one. If you wanna make them smaller stop having 5
> ALAC/at large delegates. No reason for that they are an advisory
> committee like everyone else.
>
> I keep hearing that we should compromise on this and that and that
> we have better things to do. What are these better things? We are
> here to advance our interest. By sitting on policy positions we
> cannot get anywhere.
>
> Stephanie, if you have written something great. If not we just
> turn my response with correction to a statement and send it off.
> We can’t wait forever.
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 6:53 PM Stephanie E Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> The fault is not Caleb's it is mine. I have been working on
> that draft. Judith Hellerstein was kind enough to draft the
> response to the call for comments, and I had intended to
> circulate the draft for comments this past weekend.
> Unfortunately a health emergency in my family has dragged me
> away. There was quite a bit of discussion around the meeting
> in Washington on this topic, and it also had come up at
> Council. Council is just now preparing its draft response to
> the Board. We have till the 30th and Julf is standing by to
> send the final draft, so please lets not panic.
>
> There is strong opposition to growing the Nomcom, as it grows
> it becomes more unwieldy, and they are already working very
> hard. So I would submit that asking for three delegates, just
> like the commercial group, is a non-starter. However, the
> battle to get a seat for NPOC, at least at the GNSO level,
> appears to be turning in our favour. Please see my comments
> re the questions below, and expect to see a tidied up draft
> comment shortly.
>
>
> On 2023-06-26 5:50 p.m., Raoul Plommer wrote:
>> Hi Caleb,
>>
>> You received that very email on 27th of April, and since
>> you've been preparing the draft since, perhaps you could
>> finally share your work with us so we could make that
>> statement together as a stakeholder group?
>>
>> -Raoul
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 21:46, farzaneh badii
>> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Where are NCSG's joint recommendations? NCUC can
>> reinforce the message.
>>
>>
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 2:44 PM Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele
>> <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I believe NCUC can consolidate the response with the
>> NCSG's joint recommendations.
>>
>> This will allow us to go out on a united front as
>> non-commercial.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 1:40 PM farzaneh badii
>> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Benjamin,
>>
>> Not only do we need to respond, we should reach
>> out to our friends and colleagues and tell them
>> what the problem is. See the responses below:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 1:57 PM Benjamin
>> Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear NCUC members,
>>
>> Good day and I hope your week is going well.
>> Thank you for participating in the NCUC
>> Readout session. As discussed in the meeting
>> today, please share your response to these
>> questions to gather our community views.
>>
>> ICANN Board Chair Tripti Sinha is requesting
>> feedback from your respective community
>> groups on the question of rebalancing the
>> Nominating Committee (NomCom) by **30
>> June 2023**. As noted in the letter, the
>> ICANN Board wishes to engage with the
>> community to understand the community’s views
>> on this topic. The Board is specifically
>> seeking input on the following questions:
>>
>> 1. What does it mean to have a balanced
>> NomCom at a point in time? For example, what
>> criteria would you apply to measure or assess
>> whether the
>> NomCom is balanced? And further, how can one
>> test whether or not the NomCom is balanced?
>>
>>
>>
>> A balanced NomCom means that the noncommercial
>> and commercial stakeholder groups as
>> predicted have the same number of delegates. For
>> example, if the Commercial Group has three
>> delegates, the noncommercial group should have
>> three delegates. This is the least that can be
>> done when rebalancing.It should be remodeled
>> based on GNSO council composition.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Do you support the view that the current
>> composition of the NomCom needs to be
>> rebalanced? Please explain why or why not.
>>
>> Yes it needs to be rebalanced because as we have
>> argued the noncommercials have fewer delegates
>> compared to the commercial stakeholder group. In
>> every ICANN group, the commercial and
>> noncommercial stakeholder groups should have
>> equal number of delegates, irrespective of how
>> many internal constituencies they each have./(SP
>> see above, I doubt this has support. we just
>> need to have members for each constituency,
>> bearing in mind that the contracted parties do
>> not have consitutuencies, and the At Large has
>> regions not constituencies.)/
>> Also the advisory committees either should be
>> voting delegates or non-voting delegates. Perhaps
>> because ICANN is privately led and the chair of
>> GAC is a liaison on the board the nonvoting
>> nomcom (which they have never appointed) might
>> make sense but it is unclear why some advisory
>> committees are voting and some are not. /
>> /
>>
> /SP The recommendation has already been accepted to make all
> seats on the NomCom voting/
>>
>>
>> 3. How frequently does the balance need to be
>> measured or assessed?
>>
>> After rebalancing, if the review of various ICANN
>> structures lead to structural changes (which it
>> rarely does) then we need to assess whether it
>> should affect delegation on Nomcom.
>>
> /SP I think it best, as I have said at every PC committee when
> the matter ever came up, to steer as clear of structural
> review as possible. Lets agree on 10 years for NomCom review
> once we get this settled, unless there is a sudden need to
> reassess. Reviews take time, money, staff resources, and are
> exhausting our volunteers./
>>
>>
>> 4. How do you suggest that the NomCom’s
>> composition be rebalanced?
>>
>> Same number of delegates from Commercial and
>> Noncommercial stakeholders group. If CSG has 3
>> delegates, NCSG has to have 3 delegates too. We
>> don't necessarily ask for increasing the number
>> of our delegates but we ask to reconsider the
>> number of delegates CSG can have.
>>
> /SP We appear to be winning the argument on constituency
> representation, lets settle for that./
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 5. Who should conduct this work, and how
>> should it be conducted?
>>
>> The board should follow the third party reviewer
>> recommendation.
>>
> /SP I believe the how refers to reallocation of NomCom reps./
>>
>>
>>
>> 6. How would your community group prioritize
>> consideration of this issue
>> within your planning efforts?
>>
>>
>> This has been a priority issue for NCUC and NCSG
>> since a long time. We are directly affected.
>>
> SP /Given that the NomCom reps are supposed to act
> independently of their organizations, I would avoid saying
> that we are directly affected. Obviously we would have had
> another seat years ago if everyone in this organization had
> faith in that independence, and the GAC might have surrendered
> the seat they have never used.....but we have to have a strong
> belief in the independence and fair HR practices of the new
> NomCom that will emerge after this review. We are the ones
> who are short a seat, so clearly it has been on our priorities
> and it will remain there until this fundamental injustice is
> corrected. To my mind, we lack qualitative review of the
> actual outputs of the NomCom, and we lack a substantive study
> of what the goals of a restructured nomcom might be. ICANN is
> 25, and there are plenty of folks around who have been here
> all that time. What does it mean to get new blood to join
> ICANN from outside the membership groups? What does the MS
> model need after 25 years? How did the review committee
> discuss this issue? are there studies?/
>
> /Those of you who sat on these groups, and there are several
> of you out there who did, please weigh in./
>
> Kind regards, and apologies for the failure to send the draft
> this weekend as planned. Life gets in the way.....
>
> Stephanie Perrin
>
>>
>> Additional background on the work to date on
>> this topic, including by the NomCom Review
>> Implementation Working Group that
>> was set up to implement the outcomes of the
>> Second NomCom Review (see
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence
>>
>>
>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence>
>> for each of the
>> letters sent to all 21 SOAC leaders). In
>> addition, on 25 May 2023, the
>> Chair of the Board’s Organizational
>> Effectiveness Committee, Katrina
>> Sataki, and members of ICANN org’s Reviews
>> Support & Accountability team
>> gave a presentation to the GNSO Council that
>> covered the present
>> structure of NomCom, a brief history of the
>> rebalancing matter and
>> forthcoming actions. As such, you may find
>> the presentation
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/presentation/presentation-gnso-council-nomcom-rebalancing-revised-25may23-en.pdf
>> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/presentation/presentation-gnso-council-nomcom-rebalancing-revised-25may23-en.pdf>> and
>> the recording
>> <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/7pSQ37mSB5wGz8-msQS2PDpzhQ6VdJQISm2SYmWKwfFMWFM_Z6FdMsFiipNyIV-E.J55mm5SBjoZJS9d9?startTime=1684990882000> (from
>> 00:14:10 - 00:31:38) helpful in discussing
>> any planned feedback with
>> your members.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Caleb Ogundele*
>> Email: muyiwacaleb at gmail.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
> --
> Farzaneh
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
>
> --
> *Caleb Ogundele*
> Email: muyiwacaleb at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20230626/2da8ffc3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: nomcom rebalancing letter.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 24084 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20230626/2da8ffc3/attachment.docx>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list