[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

[Karel Douglas]

Thanks Bill,

 Yes, I do recall your input on these issues. Thanks for the update.

I agree that we should seek to "re-balance" the equation if possible.
Understandably the matters are complex and it would be a matter of careful
negotiation.

Bill your knowledge of these issues is critical and I hope that you can
assist the WG on these issues. I will do some further reading and
contribute to this going forward.

regards,

Karel DOUGLAS

On 24 November 2016 at 06:14, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi Nadia & Raoul,
>
> On Nov 24, 2016, at 10:56, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill.
> Thank you for bringing to our attention the NCUC members in the Nomcom
> review wp.
> I'm still doing the background readings to have a better understanding and
> I appreciate that you've mentioned what have been discussed on NCUC and
> will dig into the archive of 2014 to broaden my perspective.
>
>
>
> On Nov 24, 2016, at 10:53, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for this Bill,
>
> It clarifies the process of future action and gives me plenty of material
> to go through. I will of course work closely with our members of the
> working group and I now wish I knew of the NomCom-issue beforehand.
>
> Great. Especially important is to look at what the Board wanted to do last
> time, which I mentioned in August:
>
> On Aug 2, 2016, at 16:38, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
> Further to the last point — Ed rightly mentioned the intra-GNSO
> imbalance.  A number of us have indeed raised the lack of NPOC
> representation in various contexts and gotten pushback from the
> board.  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”:
>
> ‐ Five members appointed from the At‐Large Advisory Committee, with one
> from each Regional At‐Large Organization
> ‐ Five members appointed from the ccNSO, with one from each geographic
> region
> ‐ Five members appointed from the ASO, with one from each geographic region
> ‐ Four members appointed from the GNSO, with one from each Stakeholder
> Group
> ‐ Up to three members appointed from the GAC
> ‐ One member each from the IAB (IETF), SSAC and RSSAC
>
> Luckily this generated an outcry and was not acted upon, but it indicates
> that composition is a can of worms to be reopened carefully…
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> It might be hard to convince people that NCUC should have two when the
> registries and registrars each have one, and the new gTLD program expands
> those groups.  But the double representation of the BC might be a something
> people are open to discussing.
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> 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/d39173da/attachment-0002.html>