<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="">I’d like to echo comments from Ayden, Tatiana, and James. <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Non-commercials are not the only group within ICANN that volunteers beyond their paid role - some of us are paid for our work for NCSG, some of us do commercial work (directly or indirectly connected to our ICANN work) as well, some of us have even bounced back and forward between employment by other sectors of the community (or even ICANN itself), it does not diminish our work or our commitment whether we are paid or unpaid, but nor does it make us uniquely morally untainted. Non-commercial civil society is a very broad sector with a broad range of views and concerns, and many of us represent organisations that have a more specific remit than simply wanting the best possible internet - and there is nothing wrong with that, that is the nature of including all non-commercial civil society. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What we do at ICANN must be focussed on ICANN issues (and it is natural that we can disagree somewhat on exactly what ICANNs role is, as other stakeholders also do), mostly names and numbers and the DNS, and we do so in a multistakeholder way, that means we must seek consensus with other participants. Ayden is absolutely correct in pointing out ICANNs limited remit here, and that the very nature of multi-stakeholder participation means we should be accepting the validity of the participation of other stakeholders. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think our position on NomCom is not in any way based on the idea that NCSG is a special group with a special role, merely that it is under-represented compared to other groups that the current NomCom process does treat differently for historical reasons. When ICANN gives other groups higher representation than others, it needs special justification - sometimes that may be justified (e.g. registries are treated differently in the CSC, but the argument there is that registries are direct customers of PTI), I think we agree that arguments for the current balance of NomCom are weak at best, more likely and historical accidents that should be corrected.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think the idea that commercial stakeholders are more likely to be bought off corruptly is an unfortunate implication that should be rejected strongly. People volunteer for a broad range of reasons, and many commercial volunteers (and government, for that matter) volunteer for relatively altruistic reason well beyond their commercial interests. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">David</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 25 Nov. 2016, at 5:05 pm, Ayden Férdeline <<a href="mailto:icann@ferdeline.com" class="">icann@ferdeline.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="">If we really think about the future of the internet governance, is it really fair, that the GNSO only allocates one seat out of seven in NomCom for non-commercial interests? I think not. We should be a far more powerful stakeholdergroup, for we have all the individuals' interests at stake. The other collectives are fighting for their bottomline.<br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Hi, Raoul- <br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">My understanding of the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, at least in its ideal form, is that all stakeholders participate on an equal footing, so I am inclined to think that we should not be a "far more powerful stakeholder group" than anyone else. We should, however, have the ability to influence policy to the same extent that others can. <br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But I do want to pick up on this line about "the future of ... Internet governance", which I found curious, and your other email about Facebook in China. I'm wondering if we see ICANN as performing the same functions. Do you agree that ICANN is not an Internet governance organisation and is not a venue for broad public policy making? Some would argue that a better outcome altogether would be the Internet flourishing without ICANN, as that would be a decentralised network of networks as originally envisioned. <br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I appreciate that definitions of Internet governance vary in scope, but I see the role of ICANN at present as limited more to things like the allocation of some unique identifiers, and not to do with things like freedom of speech outside of the Domain Name System, which is what I thought you were getting at in your email about Facebook. <br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I'm not suggesting we should not have more representation on the NomCom (we should have equal representation as other stakeholder groups) but I think we should keep the impact of our underrepresentation in perspective.<br class=""><br class="">Best wishes,<br class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ayden <br class=""></div><div class=" protonmail_signature_block"><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br class=""></div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class="protonmail_quote"><div class="">-------- Original Message --------<br class=""></div><div class="">Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review<br class=""></div><div class="">Local Time: 25 November 2016 9:22 AM<br class=""></div><div class="">UTC Time: 25 November 2016 07:22<br class=""></div><div class="">From: <a href="mailto:plommer@gmail.com" class="">plommer@gmail.com</a><br class=""></div><div class="">To: Tapani Tarvainen <<a href="mailto:tapani.tarvainen@effi.org" class="">tapani.tarvainen@effi.org</a>>, NCUC-discuss <<a href="mailto:ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" class="">ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a>><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">First there's, let's say philosophical, abstract level, where Raoul's<br class=""></div><div class="">point is obvious: commercial actors are by definition motivated by<br class=""></div><div class="">money, thus not only can be bought but have already been bought.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Second, on the level of individual level it is clear, as Matt et al<br class=""></div><div class="">have pointed out, people's motivations are complex and variable,<br class=""></div><div class="">and cannot be reduced to simple money/other division.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But for the present purpose, trying to increase our representation<br class=""></div><div class="">and to improve the influence of non-commercial interests, the former<br class=""></div><div class="">is what we should be talking about. It's not the motivations of<br class=""></div><div class="">individuals but what they represent that matters there.<br class=""></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Yes, this is exactly what I meant and I'm glad someone else articulated it, to drive the point home. If we really think about the future of the internet governance, is it really fair, that the GNSO only allocates one seat out of seven in NomCom for non-commercial interests? I think not. We should be a far more powerful stakeholdergroup, for we have all the individuals' interests at stake. The other collectives are fighting for their bottomline.<br class=""></div><div class=""> <br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Despite of the complexity of the motivations of individual business<br class=""></div><div class="">constituency's representatives, we cannot assume they will also keep<br class=""></div><div class="">non-commercial interests in mind so we don't need to worry about that.<br class=""></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Yes, I have no doubts that our individual interests can be very complex but the NCUC's mandate is clear. This is what I meant, when I said that "only a few constituencies can't be simply paid off". Which, retrospectively, was me trying to be as succinct as possible, but apparently failed in doing so.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I also side with Rafik, for focusing on the process and operating methods of NomCom but I do think we should really be doing both; getting another seat AND making NomCom more transparent in what it does and how it reaches its decisions. These two do not exclude each other but in fact, gives us another attacking vector for improving the current situation.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Raoul<br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" class="">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br class="">http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>