<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Nadia & Raoul,<div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 24, 2016, at 10:56, Nadira Alaraj <<a href="mailto:nadira.araj@gmail.com" class="">nadira.araj@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default">Hi Bill.<br class="">Thank you for bringing to our attention the NCUC members in the Nomcom review wp. <br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default">I'm still doing the background readings to have a better understanding and I appreciate that you've mentioned what have been discussed on NCUC and will dig into the archive of 2014 to broaden my perspective.<br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 24, 2016, at 10:53, Raoul Plommer <<a href="mailto:plommer@gmail.com" class="">plommer@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div class=""><p dir="ltr" class="">Thanks for this Bill,</p><p dir="ltr" class="">It clarifies the process of future action and gives me plenty of material to go through. I will of course work closely with our members of the working group and I now wish I knew of the NomCom-issue beforehand.</p></div></blockquote><div class=""><div class=""><p dir="ltr" class="">Great. Especially important is to look at what the Board wanted to do last time, which I mentioned in August:</p></div></div></div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Aug 2, 2016, at 16:38, William Drake <<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch" class="">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;">Further to the last point — Ed rightly mentioned the intra-GNSO imbalance. A number of us have indeed raised the lack of NPOC representation in various contexts and gotten pushback from the board. Meanwhile the three CSG constituencies get four reps (two for the BC!) and contracted also gets two reps. How this will evolve if/when we new DNS industry constituencies due to the new gTLD program is hard to say, but the above mentioned 2014 Board Working Group on the NomCom most certainly got it wrong in suggesting that NomCom should be restructured as follows to avoid “GNSO over-representation”:</span><br class=""><br class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;">‐ Five members appointed from the At‐Large Advisory Committee, with one from each Regional At‐Large Organization</span><br class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;">‐ Five members appointed from the ccNSO, with one from each geographic region</span><br class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;">‐ Five members appointed from the ASO, with one from each geographic region</span><br class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;">‐ Four members appointed from the GNSO, with one from each Stakeholder Group</span><br class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;">‐ Up to three members appointed from the GAC</span><br class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;">‐ One member each from the IAB (IETF), SSAC and RSSAC</span><br class=""><br class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;">Luckily this generated an outcry and was not acted upon, but it indicates that composition is a can of worms to be reopened carefully…</span><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><div class=""><div class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;"><br class=""></span></div></div><div class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;">I think the notion of one rep per GNSO stakeholder group might be salable to the wider community, although of course CSG would fight it tooth and nail as they have four reps to one each for the registries, registrars, and NCUC. But the rest of the Board’s suggestions were pretty ill-considered. And one per SG would not offset the fact that ALAC has five.</span></div><div class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;"><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;">Other routes could be to focus at the constituency rather than SG level, and try to get one for NPOC, or even for academics (there’s a history there). That’d still leave us with less than CSG though.</span></div><div class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;"><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;">It might be hard to convince people that NCUC should have two when </span>the registries and registrars each have one, and the new gTLD program expands those groups. But the double representation of the BC might be a something people are open to discussing.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In any event, we’d need to think through bargaining positions—opening bids, what we’d settle for after negotiation, etc., taking into account the preferences of the rest of the community represented on NomCom.</div><div class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;"><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;">Cheers</span></div><div class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;"><br class=""></span></div><div class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;">Bill</span></div></body></html>