[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

Sat Nov 26 10:28:20 CET 2016

Per previous, I am in total agreement with Milton and Ed, equity among stakeholder groups would be better than multiplying the representation of constituencies, which will inevitably leave the imbalance intact.  Moreover, one could at least try to get the contracted parties on board, whereas demanding more seats for our constituency than the two contracted get will have no real appeal to anyone but us.  

The problem is the number; if we say one per SG, the GNSO ends up with less rep than we have now, which some in the Board tried previously to push to deal with perceived GNSO 'over-representation.' We then would not only face strong CSG opposition but would collectively have less than ALAC if we somehow succeeded. If instead we say two per SG the same groups would likely oppose, but it would at least be more in line with actual roles and responsibilities in ICANN and have substantive merit beyond any sense of grievance. Of course, this does not respond to the argument that noncommercial should have the same weight as all business groupings taken together, but the reality of ICANN is such that that argument will not fly with anyone anyway.

This said, I also think this whole conversation is entirely premature. There is a review scheduled to begin in February and that is the time and context in which to raise these concerns. Going around in circles on it among ourselves before the fact probably is not going to take us anywhere; it certainly has not yet.

Bill

Sent from my iPad

> On Nov 26, 2016, at 07:07, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> 
> I agree with absolutely everything Milton has written here.
>  
> In particular, it is important to note that in some manner we have common cause with our commercial colleagues in terms of NomCom participation. Yes, the CSG/NCSG ratio is unfair but what would be even worse is allowing this division to cause the GNSO to lose substantive power to ALAC and the CCNSO in NomCom. We need to work with our GNSO colleagues, including the CSG,  to ensure that does not happen. 
>  
> I also can not stress enough how much I agree with Milton's comments concerning Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups. We want to do things within the GNSO in 4's, the CSG wants to do things in 7's. Every NCSG member needs to internalise this basic mathematical equation because we haven't always and, as in CCT nominations, we were burnt because of it and when that happens we get the short end in policy recommendations.  
>  
> Ed Morris
>  
> Sent from my iPhone
>  
>  
> From: "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2016 5:53 AM
> To: "Raoul Plommer" <plommer at gmail.com>
> Cc: "NCUC-discuss" <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review
>  
> I’ve just caught up with this conversation about the Nomcom. It’s disappointing, I do think we’ve been completely distracted.
> 
>  
> 
> The real issue is an unfair imbalance in Nomcom representation. It is _not_ the fact that we are holy and the others are devils. Whatever one thinks about commercial or noncommercial stakeholders, it simply isn’t right that one particular stakeholder group (CSG) gets 4 representatives and while the Registry SG, Registrar SG and NCSG all get only one.
> 
>  
> 
> We should all be able to readily agree on that. But if you run around saying that noncommercials are angels and all the others are shit, you will not succeed in achieving the reforms. That will only alienate all the other SGs. You will need a broad consensus amongst multiple stakeholder groups to rebalance the Nomcom. Please, let’s try to pull together on that.
> 
>  
> 
> Another principle we need to uphold is that representation should be based on broadly defined stakeholder groups and not on constituencies. The number of constituencies within a SG is essentially arbitrary. To base representation on the number of constituencies creates an inherent imbalance in favor of CSG (because of the historical accident that it has 3 constituencies). We should be arguing that all SG’s should have the same number of representatives, because the GNSO balance is based on SGs. It is a mistake, for example, to argue that NPOC should get a noncom appointee simply because they are a constituency. If we do that, then we will only make permanent the idea that CSG gets 3 representatives and NCSG gets only two, and the contracted parties get only one. Or, even worse, we will incentivize the artificial creation of new constituencies in all 4 SGs, creating an “arms race” as SG’s seek to gain more power by generating more constituencies.
> 
>  
> 
> I’d also warn everyone to pay attention to what Bill Drake said. A prior report called for drastically curtailing GNSO’s representation on Nomcom and increasing the relative representation of the ALAC. This, too, is unacceptable – since 95% of what the board does is related to domain names. We need to look at the larger picture. In general, our interests are best served by maintaining a strong GNSO presence on the Nomcom and a fair balance amongst the GNSO representatives on the Nomcom.
> 
>  
> 
> --MM
> 
>  
> 
> From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Raoul Plommer
> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 4:51 AM
> To: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> Cc: NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review
> 
>  
> 
> I think the insinuation that bribes are being paid to nomcom members, even in rare circumstances is a ludicrous accusation and I would like for you to retract it. Some of this communities best actors participate in nomcom on behalf of all our organisations, how would we as NCUC feel if such accusations were levelled at Bill or Rafik or Brenden? Unless you have documentary evidence of such things I think its best not to run around slandering members of the community.
> 
>  
> 
> This is big business to the tune of billions. I think it's ludicrous to state that bribery never takes place in ICANN. People get killed for far less monies. But this is besides my point and it's insistence can be seen as a willing effort to derail the real conversation we should be having.
> 
>  
> 
> To be honest I think that you need to speak with people from other constituencies more, if you think that they are all getting paid hourly rates to participate in ICANN and are getting rich of this there is a lot of learning to be done.
> 
>  
> 
> I'm using simplifications to make my points as understandable and concise as possible, but no, I do not think all the others are getting rich of their participation in the ICANN. However, there still is a big difference for getting paid for your work, as opposed to not making your living off your participation. I think we' in the NCSG are all priviledged to be able to contribute our time. At best, we can use our work for the freedom and equality of the internet within the NCSG to advance our own personal profile for jobs that they can make a living with, like consultancy or getting paid for conducting research on Internet governance, for example.
> 
>  
> 
> And I personally would prefer EC members who say where we can work with others and get stronger as an SG rather than ones that seem to prefer to attack the very people who those of us out in the PDPs and on the committees and teams work with day in day out. By isolating ourselves and putting ourselves onto some moral high ground and looking down on them we do ourselves a disservice and its certainly an attitude that will get us nowhere in the long run. 
> 
>  
> 
> I'm not looking down on anyone. The others are fulfilling their missions, just like us. They just happen to be prioritising on controlling people and making profits off of them, perhaps not as an individual, but as the collective they are representing. I could make a comparison between the SGs' bylaws to confirm this. Keeping the Internet free and equal will eventually help all the SG's. We have a far harder task, we are underpaid and outnumbered in keeping the playing field level for all the SGs in the long run. It's not just a moral high ground, it's been proven in the past. Corporations make decisions looking at quarterly reports and states work according to ~4yrs election periods. We need to be thinking about a much larger canvas and that should be reflected in the NomCom, that selects some of the most important leadership positions in ICANN. One out of seven is just preposterous.
> 
>  
> 
> Tatiana: 
> 
> >Some of the work they do is outside of their paycheck hours. Long hours.
> Furthermore, NonCommercial SG members can do private consultancies and
> guess what, get paid for it. Some of us get good payment for protecting
> non-commercial interests and yes, get paid for hours they spent at ICANN
> (not my case, but there are cases to make, and I find it great that
> people get paid for this work).
> 
>  
> 
> People work overtime to keep their jobs all the time but there's a big difference of getting at least a normal day's salary for working in ICANN, or getting nada for it. It's not the case for everyone, but it's the trend, if you will. I really wish more of us got paid to work on our common issues, too.
> 
>  
> 
> >"Yes, we *might* have different interests but we can also have aligned goals."
> 
>  
> 
> I haven't contradicted this at any point but you guys insist on this. It can seem like a concerted effort to paint me something that I'm not. We are bound to have courses of action, where all the SGs win. But there's usually always at least one, that wins less. I want to see human rights losing less, because like I've said, our success has resulted in better businesses and states, too - in the long run. They should recognise the fact, that we really are aligned in their favour and are somewhat neutral in our role. We just want to keep it free and equal for all. If you'd trust one of the SG's with more power, wouldn't it be an SG, that is based on human rights, rather than profits?
> 
>  
> 
> Ayden:
> 
> >"We may at times claim to speak on behalf of certain voices, but unlike a business where a consumer can decide not to buy a product that does not meet their standards, we're here whether we deliver or not."
> 
>  
> 
> Well, if our representational share in all the leadership positions is as low as it is, we might as well be not delivering. The internet is certainly not becoming freer, as it is. I want to welcome everyone in the NCSG to discuss, what arguments would be the best for gaining another seat or two in the NomCom. My point about non-com vs commercial interests should be one of them. Without these arguments, we will continue in fighting an uphill battle that is unnecessarily steep and will wear all of us down.
> 
> I'm guessing Bill's notion of new constituencies because of the gTLDs would consist of different kinds of business models also. The non-commercial interests are being diluted, as we speak and we need to fight back. We do not need to think of ourselves on a pedestal, we just need to tell the other SG's like it is. Condescending tones aren't necessary, but sometimes useful, like in the case of Facebook in China.
> 
>  
> 
> -Raoul
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161126/22256ede/attachment-0002.html>