[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

Thu Nov 24 20:48:13 CET 2016

And can I extrapolate from that you don’t believe that businesses are capable of making choices that are humane or decent? And that thus our colleagues across the GNSO cannot align with those goals?

-James

From: Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org>> on behalf of Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com<mailto:plommer at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday 24 November 2016 at 19:12
To: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
Cc: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

Our motivation is to keep internet humane and decent. Others' is to make as much money off it, as possible. While it might be a binary way of looking at things, it's a very clear line to me.

On 24 November 2016 at 20:32, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org<mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:

That's pretty binary.  Humankind is far more complicated.  Profit is just an expression of power, which manifests itself in many different ways.

We are all susceptible to being bought off - in many cases it may not have nothing to do with dollars and cents.

I suspect that the motivations of those in the broader ICANN community are quite diverse, no matter their constituencies.

On 24/11/2016 18:26, Raoul Plommer wrote:
It's easy. Either you are inspired by profit or you're not. NCSG's motivations are based on decency and humanity.

On 24 November 2016 at 20:20, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
That’s a very very serious accusation to make, care to back it up?

From: Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com<mailto:plommer at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday 24 November 2016 at 18:13
To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
Cc: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>

Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

What it really boils down to, is that only a few constituencies can't be simply paid off.

On 24 November 2016 at 20:01, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
I think that the stakeholder balance across the GNSO and in NomCom is a little more complex than just business vs non business. I agree some reform is needed however.

-James

From: Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org>> on behalf of Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com<mailto:plommer at gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday 24 November 2016 at 17:57
To: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
Cc: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

I think the businesses are taking all the damn seats.

On 24 November 2016 at 17:39, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org<http://www.williamdrake.org>
************************************************

_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987<tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>

________________________________
[Avast logo]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org<mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161124/505e1563/attachment.html>