[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

[Raoul Plommer]

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> 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> on behalf of
> Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com>
> Date: Thursday 24 November 2016 at 17:57
> To: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Cc: NCUC-discuss <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> 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> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> 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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>>   www.williamdrake.org
>> ************************************************
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161124/74c4879e/attachment-0002.html>