[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom Review

[Tapani Tarvainen]

I find myself very much in agreement with Milton here.

If anything I'd just like to emphasize that we really should avoid
unnecessarily strong language, big words, accusatory tones &c
with each other as well as when talking with other groups.

Tapani

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 05:53:20AM +0000, Mueller, Milton L (milton at gatech.edu) wrote:

> 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