Questions about Noncommercial Stakeholder Group organization

[Hakikur Rahman]

Clearly, first option for both are more 
acceptable to me. However, for voting a candidate 
each member should not be allowed to vote more 
than two votes. Similarly, for geographic 
representation, each region should not have more 
than two seats, but it would be great, if at 
least 4 regions could be represented among 6. 
Regarding EC and PC, seems they are alright.

Thanking you,
Hakik

At 12:56 PM 11/5/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Greetings members,
>Here at Cairo we have had some very useful 
>discussions with Board members, ALAC and the 
>business constituencies about the shape of the 
>new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. We have 
>promised to give the Board Governance Committee 
>a rough draft of the charter for the new NCSG by the end of this month.
>There were a couple of issues or decisions that 
>were controversial or just difficult to know 
>what is best. We wanted to solicit your opinion 
>about that. Please give us your input on the items below
>
>Two of the questions relate to electing GNSO 
>Councilors. The other is just a question about organizational structure
>
>In the future we will need to elect 6 GNSO Councilors.
>
>Voting method for GNSO Council representatives
>=====================================
>V1) Should each member give one vote to 6 candidates?
>V2) Should we allow members to concentrate and 
>distribute their votes, e.g., assign all 6 votes 
>to one candidate, or 3 votes to 2 candidates, or 2 votes to 3 candidates?
>The concentrated vote method would increase the 
>chances that minorities with strong preferences 
>would be represented on the Council. It would, 
>as a result, decrease the solidarity of the NCSG 
>as a voting bloc and reduce the need for Council 
>candidates to try to represent the stakeholder 
>group as a whole. Most of the members meeting 
>here favored Option 1 because they wanted 
>Council members to have a broader appeal, but at 
>least one favored the concentrated method. There 
>are also some concerns about the procedural complexity of concentrated voting.
>
>Geographic representation
>====================
>There are 6 Council seats and 5 ICANN geographic 
>regions. What geographic representation rule do we follow?
>Two different options were proposed:
>G1) A simple rule that no region can have more than two (2) council seats
>G2) A rule that at least 4 regions must be represented in the outcome.
>I think there was agreement that the GNSO 
>Council position is important and very 
>demanding, so no one should get elected to it 
>solely because of their regional origin; they 
>should compete with candidates from other 
>regions on the basis of their qualifications and 
>commitment to the job. So that is why we did not 
>just say that the Council seats should
>
>Rule G1 would mean that you could have a minimum 
>of three regions represented on the Council (2 from each of 3 regions)
>Rule G2 would mean that 4 regions would be 
>represented, but one region might have as many as 3 of the 6 seats
>
>Executive Committee – Policy Committee Structure
>======================================
>Here we are just asking for comment on organizational structure.
>
>We seemed to come to an agreement on:
>An _Executive Committee_ that consists of:
>    * Chair
>    * A Chair-appointed Secretary-Treasurer
>    * Two others elected by constituencies (one vote per constituency)
>The executive committee handled administrative 
>tasks such as membership reviews, fund allocations, meeting agendas, voting
>
>A _Policy committee_ that consists of:
>Elected GNSO Councilors
>One representative from each constituency
>The Policy Committee
>    * Governs statements issued in name of NCSG
>    * Initiates policy proceedings on behalf of NCSG
>    * Can provide guidance to Councilors - upon request, no need for vote
>
>What do you think of this structure?
>Apologies for the length of this message, but we 
>do need your input on these issues
>
>
>--
>This message has been scanned for viruses and
>dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/>MailScanner, and is
>believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20081106/8dabc2a9/attachment.html>