[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Delegate to the 2015 NomCom

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Thanks, Tamir. Great to know the details of the process. I think there
will be many examples to learn from if we do engage in trying to propose
something really new for ICANN.

The case of CGI.br is quite special, in that it was created by the
government in 1995, and some gov ministries constituted a top-down
nominating committee to choose all reps (gov and non gov). The big
change happened in 2003, when all non-govs (12 out of 21 members)
started to be chosen by their own constituencies. But domain name
holders as such have no vote and no say, except through the CS, business
and tech comm stakeholders' representatives.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 08/25/2014 10:58 AM, Tamir Israel wrote:
> On 25/08/2014 8:55 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> In the case of ccTLDs there are some good straightforward examples --
>> CIRA's board is elected by the domain name holders, not registrars
>> (although its contracts -- both CIRA's and the domain holder -- are with
>> registrars).
> CIRA takes a 2-tiered approach (with members at the ultimate end of
> both). There's a nomination committee, which is appointed by the
> existing board. It nominates x number of candidates. All .CA members
> then vote on the nominated candidates to fill any vacant nominated
> candidate seats on the board (9 out of 12 board seats are allocated to
> nominated candidates).
> 
> In addition, any .CA owner can put themselves forward as a candidate. If
> they receive at least 20 shows of support from other .CA owners, they
> become official candidates. All .CA members can then vote on the member
> candidates to fill any vacant member candidate seats on the board (3/12
> board seats are allocated to member directors).
> 
> We don't have a mechanism for direct stakeholder input analogous to the
> GNSO tho. It seems that in the ICANN context, given the centrality of
> the GNSO and the stakeholder model, you would want closer and more
> direct connection between the nomination committee and stakeholder
> groups. In addition, given that ICANN controls an important public
> resource, I'm not sure control of the board should be limited to members
> (as in .*** owners).
> 
> Also, while I'm here, +1 for brenden : )
> 
> Best,
> Tamir
>