Fwd: Questions about Noncommercial Stakeholder Group organization

[Robin Gross]

I think the below message from an NCUC member was only sent to me on  
accident instead of the entire mailing list.

Thanks,
Robin


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Tan Tin Wee (Biochemistry)" <bchtantw at nus.edu.sg>
> Date: November 5, 2008 7:03:11 AM PST
> To: "Robin Gross" <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> Subject: RE: Questions about Noncommercial Stakeholder Group  
> organization
>
> Option 1
> For me too
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:11 PM
> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Questions about Noncommercial Stakeholder Group  
> organization
>
> I also favor option 1 for both issues below, and am eager to hear  
> what others in the constituency think about structuring the  
> stakeholder group this way.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2008, at 5:24 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
>
> 	Hello,
>
> 	I favor option 1 for both voting methods and geographic  
> representation.  Simplicity is preferable in both cases.  The  
> proposed committee structure seems sensible.
>
> 	Thanks to Mary for the helpful notes.
>
> 	Must run,
>
> 	Bill
> 	
>
> 	On Nov 5, 2008, at 7:56 AM, 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
> 		
> 		
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20081106/24b0030c/attachment.html>