<div dir="ltr"><div>Thanks Bill,</div><div><br></div><div> Yes, I do recall your input on these issues. Thanks for the update.</div><div><br></div><div>I agree that we should seek to "re-balance" the equation if possible. Understandably the matters are complex and it would be a matter of careful negotiation. </div><div><br></div><div>Bill your knowledge of these issues is critical and I hope that you can assist the WG on these issues. I will do some further reading and contribute to this going forward.</div><div><br></div><div>regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Karel DOUGLAS</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 24 November 2016 at 06:14, William Drake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="-ms-word-wrap: break-word;">Hi Nadia & Raoul,<div><span><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 24, 2016, at 10:56, Nadira Alaraj <<a href="mailto:nadira.araj@gmail.com" target="_blank">nadira.araj@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-4286515908675888180Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default">Hi Bill.<br>Thank you for bringing to our attention the NCUC members in the Nomcom review wp. <br></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></div></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div><br></div></span><div><span><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 24, 2016, at 10:53, Raoul Plommer <<a href="mailto:plommer@gmail.com" target="_blank">plommer@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div><p dir="ltr">Thanks for this Bill,</p><p dir="ltr">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></span><div><div><p dir="ltr">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><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Aug 2, 2016, at 16:38, William Drake <<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch" target="_blank">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-4286515908675888180Apple-interchange-newline"><div><span 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><br><span 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><span style="float:none;display:inline!important">‐ Five members appointed from the ccNSO, with one from each geographic region</span><br><span style="float:none;display:inline!important">‐ Five members appointed from the ASO, with one from each geographic region</span><br><span style="float:none;display:inline!important">‐ Four members appointed from the GNSO, with one from each Stakeholder Group</span><br><span style="float:none;display:inline!important">‐ Up to three members appointed from the GAC</span><br><span style="float:none;display:inline!important">‐ One member each from the IAB (IETF), SSAC and RSSAC</span><br><br><span 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></div></blockquote></div><div><div><span style="float:none;display:inline!important"><br></span></div></div><div><span 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><span style="float:none;display:inline!important"><br></span></div><div><span 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><span style="float:none;display:inline!important"><br></span></div><div><span 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><br></div><div>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><span style="float:none;display:inline!important"><br></span></div><div><span style="float:none;display:inline!important">Cheers</span></div><div><span style="float:none;display:inline!important"><br></span></div><div><span style="float:none;display:inline!important">Bill</span></div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>