[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

[Raoul Plommer]

>
> some of us have even bounced back and forward between employment by other
> sectors of the community (or even ICANN itself), it does not diminish our
> work or our commitment whether we are paid or unpaid, but nor does it make
> us uniquely morally untainted.
>

No, but our constituency's constitution is untainted, as far as I can see.
This is the point I'm trying to make here.


> Ayden is absolutely correct in pointing out ICANNs limited remit here, and
> that the very nature of multi-stakeholder participation means we should be
> accepting the validity of the participation of other stakeholders.
>

Well, we have no choices but to accept the results. At the moment, internet
is becoming less free and less equal for all and whatever is under ICANN's
control, we should be making sure, that its being done with human rights at
the forefront.

I think our position on NomCom is not in any way based on the idea that
> NCSG is a special group with a special role, merely that it is
> under-represented compared to other groups that the current NomCom process
> does treat differently for historical reasons.
>

At least pretty much all of us agree on the under-representation. That is a
clear sign to start thinking of arguments, why we need to repair the
imbalance and why it's beneficial for other SGs too. Instead of so many of
you trying to shoot my view down, please suggest your own or others'
arguments that seem relevant in fighting for them seats.


> I think we agree that arguments for the current balance of NomCom are weak
> at best, more likely and historical accidents that should be corrected.
>

This is my understanding also and that's why I'm trying to come up with
more reasonable arguments for increasing our share of seats. Please help me
in doing that.


> I think the idea that commercial stakeholders are more likely to be bought
> off corruptly is an unfortunate implication that should be rejected
> strongly. People volunteer for a broad range of reasons, and many
> commercial volunteers (and government, for that matter) volunteer for
> relatively altruistic reason well beyond their commercial interests.
>

It's really not the people that are the problem, but the driving forces of
different constituencies and the decisions they make. They have their sets
of bylaws that focus on a niche area, where their business model is
relevant and ours are very different to those.

Everybody's complaining how imbalanced the current system is, I've tried to
show you all one clear division that is proof for the current imbalance.
Please give me more views on how the SGs and their constituencies are
really divided, to create our skewed multi-stakeholder model.

For example, why are the registries and registrars not part of the BC,
although they are also clearly participating ICANN with commercial
interests?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161125/e8010657/attachment.html>