[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

[Raoul Plommer]

I think the businesses are taking all the damn seats.

On 24 November 2016 at 17:39, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> 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> 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/fa451f20/attachment.html>