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

Tue Jun 27 02:32:02 CEST 2023

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.
>
i will absolutely panic. We have missed the chance on this over and over
for a variety of reasons. If the council wants something from us it is time
to tell them. Equal number of delegates per stakeholder group in each
house. No ifs no buts.

>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20230626/8f05aa54/attachment.htm>