[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review
matthew shears
mshears at cdt.org
Thu Nov 24 19:32:49 CET 2016
That's pretty binary. Humankind is far more complicated. Profit is
just an expression of power, which manifests itself in many different ways.
We are all susceptible to being bought off - in many cases it may not
have nothing to do with dollars and cents.
I suspect that the motivations of those in the broader ICANN community
are quite diverse, no matter their constituencies.
On 24/11/2016 18:26, Raoul Plommer wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:plommer at gmail.com>>
> Date: Thursday 24 November 2016 at 18:13
> To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net
> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>
> Cc: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, NCUC-discuss
> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org>> on behalf of
> Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com <mailto:plommer at gmail.com>>
> Date: Thursday 24 November 2016 at 17:57
> To: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
> Cc: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:plommer at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 24 November 2016 at 12:14, William Drake
>> <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto: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
>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> <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
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
--
------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20161124/7f6c9de5/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list