[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

[Raoul Plommer]

>
> We should all be able to readily agree on that. But if you run around
> saying that noncommercials are angels and all the others are shit, you will
> not succeed in achieving the reforms. That will only alienate all the other
> SGs. You will need a broad consensus amongst multiple stakeholder groups to
> rebalance the Nomcom. Please, let’s try to pull together on that.
>

Well, I agree, although It does make me think: How did the CSG swing their
seats to 4 in the first place? Based on what arguments? I'm quite sure
there has been some rhetoric of them deserving more seats than other SG's
and I'd like to know what kind of superiority that was based on. I also do
not appreciate this constant effort from Tatiana's supporters twisting my
words instead of actually trying to understand each other.

A constitution based on human rights is more trustworthy than one based on
profits. I'm not running around calling other SGs shit and I wasn't going
to, so please stop saying things like that. We are not angels, but at least
we have a very clear constitution on upholding human rights. The other SGs
do not.


>  Another principle we need to uphold is that representation should be
> based on broadly defined stakeholder groups and not on constituencies. The
> number of constituencies within a SG is essentially arbitrary. To base
> representation on the number of constituencies creates an inherent
> imbalance in favor of CSG (because of the historical accident that it has 3
> constituencies). We should be arguing that all SG’s should have the same
> number of representatives, because the GNSO balance is based on SGs. It is
> a mistake, for example, to argue that NPOC should get a noncom appointee
> simply because they are a constituency. If we do that, then we will only
> make permanent the idea that CSG gets 3 representatives and NCSG gets only
> two, and the contracted parties get only one. Or, even worse, we will
> incentivize the artificial creation of new constituencies in all 4 SGs,
> creating an “arms race” as SG’s seek to gain more power by generating more
> constituencies.
>

Great. This is the kind of background information I really wanted to know.
I agree with all of this. There is a problem, however: If the SG's should
all have the same powers, how are we going to divide the current seven GNSO
seats in the NomCom for four SGs? I think the easiest way would be in
increasing the GNSO seats by one and give two seats to each SG. Either
that, or we could try to yank three seats off the CSG, which would leave
the GNSO with only four seats in the NomCom, instead of the current seven.
I don't think the latter is the way to go, though.

-Raoul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161126/c495fc94/attachment.html>