24 August Comment Deadline: Bylaw Amendments Related to Restructuring of the GNSO

[Adam Peake]

At 9:41 AM -0400 8/18/09, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>This is a good suggestion. Except I still rankle at the selection of
>an academic Nomcom representative by the Board while commercial
>groups are allowed to choose both of their own. --MM


Agree that it's a problem.  And we tend to discuss it each year when
it's time to select a nomcom delegate!

Has origins I guess in very early discussions of the NCUC when
(memory isn't great) Tan Tin Wee, George Sadowsky and others felt
there wasn't enough of a place in the NCDNHC for the R&D networks,
computer and technology type academia. And later Alejandro.  Board
always tries to select its NomCom delegate from this
Internet/networking academic field.

Perhaps it can be fixed. As the NCUC goes forward, write to all these
past (and present) board appointed NomCom delegates, ask if they and
their organizations would join the NCUC. Or begin a discussion about
the forming a constituency in the new NCSG (the NCUC model of
course...)

Adam




>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  How about proposing GNSO will provide six nomcom
>>  delegates, two from the contracted parties, and
>>  two each from the commercial and noncommercial
>>  SG.  One of non-commercial SG delegates being
>>  selected by the NCUC and the other by the board
>>  until transition is complete when the task passes
>>  to the NCSG (note, this is the status quo for
>>  NCUC and registries/registrars.) Number of GNSO
>>  delegates would be reduced to six.
>>
>>  Would be good to mention something about ensuring
>>  geographic and gender diversity across the GNSO's
>>  delegate selections (hard to implement...)
>>