[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

[William Drake]

Hi Raoul

There are new interests coming in with the new gTLDs, and it’s not impossible that at some point there’d be new constituencies seeking slots. Long running debate with regard to GNSO generally. So when the WG is up and running they along with everyone else may need to think about the future evolution of the community.

Cheers

Bill

> On Nov 24, 2016, at 16:10, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 24 November 2016 at 12:14, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
> 
>> Meanwhile the three CSG constituencies get four reps (two for the BC!) and contracted also gets two reps.  How this will evolve if/when we new DNS industry constituencies due to the new gTLD program is hard to say, but the above mentioned 2014 Board Working Group on the NomCom most certainly got it wrong in suggesting that NomCom should be restructured as follows to avoid “GNSO over-representation”:
> 
>  Could you elaborate on the bit I bolded? Didn't quite understand the possible ramifications.
>  
> I think the notion of one rep per GNSO stakeholder group might be salable to the wider community, although of course CSG would fight it tooth and nail as they have four reps to one each for the registries, registrars, and NCUC.  But the rest of the Board’s suggestions were pretty ill-considered.  And one per SG would not offset the fact that ALAC has five.
>  
> You mean the CSG has four reps, of which two belong to the businesses large and small, one for the ISPs and one for the IP. Registrars and registries are also businesses so basically there is only one seat for non-commercial interests, whereas 6/7 GNSO seats are motivated by profit only. This is the most outrageous part in this and I can not comprehend, how they managed to take out the academic seat in the first place, but yeah, obviously I'm still learning about ICANN...
> 
> Here is the list of seats in the NomCom and how they are currently spread:
> 
> The nominating committee has 17 seats at the moment <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/nomcom2016-members-2016-02-18-en>, altogether:
> 
> 7 from the GNSO:
> 4x CSG (1 for small, one for big businesses, one for IP and one for the ISPs)
> 1x NCSG/NCUC
> 1x Registrars
> 1x Registries
> ***************
> 1x ASO
> 1x ccNSO
> 1x SSAC
> 1x RSSAC
> ***************
> 5x ALAC (1 for each region)
> 1x IAB for IETF
> ***************
>  
> Other routes could be to focus at the constituency rather than SG level, and try to get one for NPOC, or even for academics (there’s a history there).  That’d still leave us with less than CSG though.
> 
> Yes, I think that is the least we could be happy with, is getting a seat for the NPOC, so I would set that as a minimum. The best outcome in my view would be taking no less than three seats off the CSG if we were really to go down the route of having one seat per SG. I don't think that would be too hard to sell for the other SGs either.
> 
> 
> In any event, we’d need to think through bargaining positions—opening bids, what we’d settle for after negotiation, etc., taking into account the preferences of the rest of the community represented on NomCom.
> 
> 
> Absolutely. We need to engage with the relevant people within the SGs as well as ALAC, before we make any decisions on strategy. For example, Rubens suggested dialuting some of the votes, for example, ALAC could have 0.8 or 0.6 votes per geographical region. There are many moving parts and first we need to map out all different, favourable outcomes and evaluate, which of them have most chances in succeeding and are they worth the fight. Some of these options definitely are.
> 
> -Raoul
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161124/ef4d9e15/attachment.html>