[NCUC-DISCUSS] URGENT - Time sensitive What is your view on on the question of rebalancing the Nominating Committee (NomCom)

Raoul Plommer plommer at gmail.com
Tue Jun 27 02:04:19 CEST 2023 

I agree with Farzi on this. We should have equal representation to CSG in
the NomCom.

Caleb, perhaps it is you that should check your email records on the mail
that Julf sent to the whole NCSG on the 27th of April. The letter that he
shared is identical to one I received, apart from the addressee. I think
you owe me an apology for your baseless accusations.

-Raoul

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023, 02:30 farzaneh badii, <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:

> I absolutely disagree to make this a constituency matter. It is the card
> that they played for so long to argue that we didnt have as many
> constituency. As stakeholder group, if they have 3 reps we should have 3
> reps. If we have one as stakeholder group they should have one. If you
> wanna make them smaller stop having 5 ALAC/at large delegates. No reason
> for that they are an advisory committee like everyone else.
>
> I keep hearing that we should compromise on this and that and that we have
> better things to do. What are these better things? We are here to advance
> our interest. By sitting on policy positions we cannot get anywhere.
>
> Stephanie, if you have written something great. If not we just turn my
> response with correction to a statement and send it off. We can’t wait
> forever.
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 6:53 PM Stephanie E Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>> The fault is not Caleb's it is mine.  I have been working on that draft.
>> Judith Hellerstein was kind enough to draft the response to the call for
>> comments, and I had intended to circulate the draft for comments this past
>> weekend.  Unfortunately a health emergency in my family has dragged me
>> away.  There was quite a bit of discussion around the meeting in Washington
>> on this topic, and it also had come up at Council.  Council is just now
>> preparing its draft response to the Board.  We have till the 30th and Julf
>> is standing by to send the final draft, so please lets not panic.
>>
>> There is strong opposition to growing the Nomcom, as it grows it becomes
>> more unwieldy, and they are already working very hard. So I would submit
>> that asking for three delegates, just like the commercial group, is a
>> non-starter.  However, the battle to get a seat for NPOC, at least at the
>> GNSO level, appears to be turning in our favour.  Please see my comments re
>> the questions below, and expect to see a tidied up draft comment shortly.
>>
>>
>> On 2023-06-26 5:50 p.m., Raoul Plommer wrote:
>>
>> Hi Caleb,
>>
>> You received that very email on 27th of April, and since you've been
>> preparing the draft since, perhaps you could finally share your work with
>> us so we could make that statement together as a stakeholder group?
>>
>> -Raoul
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 21:46, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Where are NCSG's joint recommendations? NCUC can reinforce the message.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 2:44 PM Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele <
>>> muyiwacaleb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe NCUC can consolidate the response with the NCSG's joint
>>>> recommendations.
>>>>
>>>> This will allow us to go out on a united front as non-commercial.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 1:40 PM farzaneh badii <
>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Benjamin,
>>>>>
>>>>> Not only do we need to respond, we should reach out to our friends and
>>>>> colleagues and tell them what the problem is. See the responses below:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 1:57 PM Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear NCUC members,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good day and I hope your week is going well.
>>>>>> Thank you for participating in the NCUC Readout session.  As
>>>>>> discussed in the meeting today, please share  your response to these
>>>>>> questions to gather our community views.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ICANN Board Chair Tripti Sinha is  requesting feedback from your
>>>>>> respective community groups on the question of rebalancing the
>>>>>> Nominating Committee (NomCom) by **30 June 2023**. As noted in the
>>>>>> letter, the ICANN Board wishes to engage with the community to
>>>>>> understand the community’s views on this topic. The Board is specifically
>>>>>> seeking input on the following questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. What does it mean to have a balanced NomCom at a point in time?
>>>>>> For example, what criteria would you apply to measure or assess whether the
>>>>>> NomCom is balanced? And further, how can one test whether or not the
>>>>>> NomCom is balanced?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A balanced NomCom means that the noncommercial and commercial
>>>>> stakeholder groups as predicted have the same number of delegates. For
>>>>> example, if the Commercial Group has three delegates, the noncommercial
>>>>> group should have three delegates. This is the least that can be done when
>>>>> rebalancing.It should be remodeled based on GNSO council composition.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Do you support the view that the current composition of the
>>>>>> NomCom needs to be rebalanced? Please explain why or why not.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it needs to be rebalanced because as we have argued the
>>>>> noncommercials have fewer delegates compared to the commercial stakeholder
>>>>> group. In every ICANN group, the commercial and noncommercial stakeholder
>>>>> groups should have equal number of delegates, irrespective of how many
>>>>> internal constituencies they each have.* (SP see above, I doubt this
>>>>> has support.  we just need to have members for each constituency, bearing
>>>>> in mind that the contracted parties do not have consitutuencies, and the At
>>>>> Large has regions not constituencies.)*
>>>>> Also the advisory committees either should be voting delegates or
>>>>> non-voting delegates. Perhaps because ICANN is privately led and the chair
>>>>> of GAC is a liaison on the board the nonvoting nomcom (which they have
>>>>> never appointed) might make sense but it is unclear why some advisory
>>>>> committees are voting and some are not.
>>>>>
>>>> *SP The recommendation has already been accepted to make all seats on
>> the NomCom voting*
>>
>>
>>>>>> 3. How frequently does the balance need to be measured or assessed?
>>>>>>
>>>>> After rebalancing, if the review of various ICANN structures lead to
>>>>> structural changes (which it rarely does)  then we need to assess
>>>>> whether it should affect delegation on Nomcom.
>>>>>
>>>> *SP I think it best, as I have said at every PC committee when the
>> matter ever came up, to steer as clear of structural review as possible.
>> Lets agree on 10 years for NomCom review once we get this settled, unless
>> there is a sudden need to reassess.  Reviews take time, money, staff
>> resources, and are exhausting our volunteers.*
>>
>>
>>>>>> 4. How do you suggest that the NomCom’s composition be rebalanced?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Same number of delegates from Commercial and Noncommercial
>>>>> stakeholders group. If CSG has 3 delegates, NCSG has to have 3 delegates
>>>>> too. We don't necessarily ask for increasing the number of our delegates
>>>>> but we ask to reconsider the number of delegates CSG can have.
>>>>>
>>>> *SP We appear to be winning the argument on constituency
>> representation, lets settle for that.*
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. Who should conduct this work, and how should it be conducted?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The board should follow the third party reviewer recommendation.
>>>>>
>>>> *SP I believe the how refers to reallocation of NomCom reps.*
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 6. How would your community group prioritize consideration of this
>>>>>> issue
>>>>>> within your planning efforts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This has been a priority issue for NCUC and NCSG since a long time. We
>>>>> are directly affected.
>>>>>
>>>> SP *Given that the NomCom reps are supposed to act independently of
>> their organizations, I would avoid saying that we are directly affected.
>> Obviously we would have had another seat years ago if everyone in this
>> organization had faith in that independence, and the GAC might have
>> surrendered the seat they have never used.....but we have to have a strong
>> belief in the independence and fair HR practices of the new NomCom that
>> will emerge after this review.  We are the ones who are short a seat, so
>> clearly it has been on our priorities and it will remain there until this
>> fundamental injustice is corrected.  To my mind, we lack qualitative review
>> of the actual outputs of the NomCom, and we lack a substantive study of
>> what the goals of a restructured nomcom might be.  ICANN is 25, and there
>> are plenty of folks around who have been here all that time.  What does it
>> mean to get new blood to join ICANN from outside the membership groups?
>> What does the MS model need after 25 years?  How did the review committee
>> discuss this issue?  are there studies?*
>>
>> *Those of you who sat on these groups, and there are several of you out
>> there who did, please weigh in.*
>>
>> Kind regards, and apologies for the failure to send the draft this
>> weekend as planned. Life gets in the way.....
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>>
>>>>>> Additional background on the work to date on this topic, including by
>>>>>> the NomCom Review Implementation Working Group that
>>>>>> was set up to implement the outcomes of the Second NomCom Review
>>>>>> (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence> for each of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> letters sent to all 21 SOAC leaders). In addition, on 25 May 2023, the
>>>>>> Chair of the Board’s Organizational Effectiveness Committee, Katrina
>>>>>> Sataki, and members of ICANN org’s Reviews Support & Accountability
>>>>>> team
>>>>>> gave a presentation to the GNSO Council that covered the present
>>>>>> structure of NomCom, a brief history of the rebalancing matter and
>>>>>> forthcoming actions. As such, you may find the presentation
>>>>>> <
>>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/presentation/presentation-gnso-council-
>>>>>> nomcom-rebalancing-revised-25may23-en.pdf> and
>>>>>> the recording
>>>>>> <
>>>>>> https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/7pSQ37mSB5wGz8-msQS2PDpzhQ6VdJQISm2SYmWKwfFMWFM_Z6FdMsFiipNyIV-E.J55mm5SBjoZJS9d9?startTime=1684990882000
>>>>>> > (from
>>>>>> 00:14:10 - 00:31:38) helpful in discussing any planned feedback with
>>>>>> your members.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Caleb Ogundele*
>>>> Email: muyiwacaleb at gmail.com
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttps://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
> --
> Farzaneh
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://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/20230627/e020911f/attachment.htm>

More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list