[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

Thu Nov 24 20:12:54 CET 2016

Our motivation is to keep internet humane and decent. Others' is to make as
much money off it, as possible. While it might be a binary way of looking
at things, it's a very clear line to me.

On 24 November 2016 at 20:32, matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> 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>
> 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
>>>> ************************************************
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttp://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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo]
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b6202b81/attachment-0002.html>