[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

[Raoul Plommer]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161124/5550add9/attachment-0002.html>