[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Delegate to the ICANN 2016 NominatingCommittee

[David Cake]

> On 6 Aug 2015, at 2:09 am, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Bill for the explanation, which has actually thrown us back to Jean's earlier outlines for consideration.
> 
> "I would suggest the following steps, which can all be taken in a fairly brief and simple way:
> - the current Executive Council (EC) of NCUC sends out a call for candidates for the position of Delegate to the NomCom,
> - this call is accompanied by a reminder of the relevant Bylaws, and of the desired criteria of NCUC (diversity, etc.),
> - the EC calls a vote on the list of candidates who satisfy the criteria; all registered members of NCUC may vote,
> - the individual garnering the most votes can then be appointed by NCUC.”

Two points to make here:
Changing NomCom representative from a selected to an elected position would be, as Bill points out, a change from both our existing bylaws and our long term practice. Changing our bylaws is a significant change, and should be a process we should take only after significant discussion, and I would suggest that discussion is best down outside of the context of any specific position.

And I think this suggesting seriously underestimates the effort required in a vote among the constituency. Every time we have a vote, it takes a lot of effort, both by staff and constituency leadership, to ensure that it is run in an accountable and trusted way, and that we have sufficient votes for it to count. We already have a democratic vote (with diversity requirements) for the EC. Making currently selected positions elected would take a very large amount of effort, and make running the constituency both harder work and more difficult to do efficiently. And I’m unconvinced it would deal with the diversity requirements any better.

I personally would not support the change of NomCom representative from a  selected to an elected position. But even if I did, I would suggest that suddenly changing from the procedure established in our bylaws on this one position would be inappropriate.

Regards

	David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20150806/39f85ab4/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20150806/39f85ab4/attachment.sig>