[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

Thu Nov 24 19:26:17 CET 2016

It's easy. Either you are inspired by profit or you're not. NCSG's
motivations are based on decency and humanity.

On 24 November 2016 at 20:20, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

> That’s a very very serious accusation to make, care to back it up?
>
> From: Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com>
> Date: Thursday 24 November 2016 at 18:13
> To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> Cc: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, NCUC-discuss <
> ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review
>
> 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/fc4cf3ff/attachment-0002.html>