[NCUC-EC] NomCom changes
Pedro de Perdigão Lana
pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com
Wed Jun 5 18:44:00 CEST 2024
Hi,
I also got curious about the whole situation, so I went through transcripts
and the wiki. Here is a summary of the last relevant movements, which may
be useful for others:
Decision Reached
<https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Decisions+Reached+%7C+Action+Items%3A+Tracking+Tool>#87:
10 #87 <https://community.icann.org/x/xwEuCg>
23/09/2021
*The NomComRIWG considered its extensive efforts toward Rec. 10*, noting
that their proposed solution provided a streamlined approach as compared to
a more fundamental restructuring of the NomCom. Recognizing that the GNSO
continues to express strong opposition to the NomComRIWG proposal, rather
considering a more fundamental assessment of the NomCom as more
appropriate, the NomComRIWG plans to withdraw its proposed Bylaws changes
on Rec.10 rebalancing. This will help progress the package of proposed
Bylaws changes and other important implementation work.
There was a Webinar about it in mid-2022 (Closed Action Items
<https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Decisions+Reached+%7C+Action+Items%3A+Tracking+Tool>
):
127 #92 <https://community.icann.org/x/4oH3Cg>
10/02/2022
*ICANN73 Prep Week Webinar
<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/ljUiLGnJAFgDh-ObO9kka40ITzfxuvCAsUvxUv_jNtlhSzRnVJB_8O5FUXTkCjBtgpthLreSnxbWtMs.8ltosWFdyUaM_Pe1?canPlayFromShare=true&from=share_recording_detail&continueMode=true&componentName=rec-play&originRequestUrl=https%3A%2F%2Ficann.zoom.us%2Frec%2Fshare%2FpnqvveOxGt05WU5JqT6W5B7mI5VxuwYtdpkTAEtwOf4VrI0pYsszs76SsDA6zNgZ.GlFYZ6OZlV-WX6_H>*
Q&A Slides to be added in between agenda items.
Work plan slide to be added under agenda item 6.
Additional slide on Rec. 10 to be added. NomCom Support Staff NA
23/02/2022
23/02/2022
Two people from the Non-Commercial were apparently responsible for Rec.10
in this Webinar
<https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Webinar+-+ICANN73+Prep+Week+NomCom+Review+Update+%7C+Thursday%2C+24+February+2022+@+18%3A30+UTC>
(see 18m20 until 23m51 for a short summary of the reasoning behind the
decision), as per the Feb. 17th meeting
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=186780719>, but
the record shows Cheryl and Tom doing this part.
Maybe the most relevant explanation is in the transcripts of the September
23rd Meeting of 2021
<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=170787271>, where
the above-mentioned decision was taken, in which only Remmy participated.
Cheryl said some interesting things there (there is a comment from her that
looks like a good summary of the whole thing "But because we thought we’d
leave the GNSO alone and give it as much absolute autonomy as possible, we
went down this particular and obviously failed and faulted pathway"). At
that meeting, however, it looks like the doors were already closed because
there was resistance from GNSO SGs *[it baffles me that the process was
planned in such a way that the opinion of those who benefitted from the
lack of balance determined the final decision]* and the OEC was, for some
reason, deeply against this change - this is a topic I think it is useful
to dig deeper to better understand what was going on. Another important
insight from the transcript is that they were not withdrawing the proposal
until the specific below, when Tom, who apparently wanted to proceed with
the Recommendation even if it had no chance of going through, had a change
of mind after a conversation between Cheryl and Larissa:
TOM BARRETT: Yes. I understand the optics more—so you’re saying the OEC
doesn’t want to make the decision. Absolutely. But we can certainly be open
to withdrawing our proposal for Rec 10. I want to know if I speak for
everyone. Can I have a thumbs up? Tracy, Jay, Dave, you all agree with
that? Cheryl and I do. Okay. All right, so that’s fine. Let’s go ahead and
withdraw the bylaw change for Rec 10. It’s just a matter of how we explain
our rationale for doing that.
There were apparently no votes against the withdrawal, but, as far as one
can understand from the documentation, the real battle was already lost in
the GNSO consultations
However, there were many indications through the documents and webinars
that the WG did not believe this ended the debate, so we may keep an eye up
for our next window of opportunity. I would already like to volunteer to
participate when the moment arrives.
Cordially,
*Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
Researcher
PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
Board Member @ NCUC (ICANN) <https://www.ncuc.org/>, ISOC BR
<https://isoc.org.br/>, CC Brasil <https://br.creativecommons.net/> and IODA
<https://ioda.org.br/>
This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
mistake, please reply informing it.
Em qua., 5 de jun. de 2024 às 06:41, Johan Helsingius via NCUC-EC <
ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org> escreveu:
> Thanks Ines!
>
> There is a reference to a "transition article" (Article 27) that seems
> to be pretty crucial. Do you have any documents describing the
> transition article?
>
> I am also curious about the recommendation 10, "Representation on
> the NomCom should be rebalanced immediately and then be reviewed
> every 5 years." that was withdrawn. Can you help shed some light
> on the discussion that led to the withdrawal of the recommendation?
>
> Julf
>
>
> On 05/06/2024 11:08, Hfaiedh Ines wrote:
> > Hi Julf
> >
> > Regarding membership I reached out to staff and here s the answer
> >
> > Hello Ines,
> >
> >
> > Thank you for reaching out - the work of the NomCom Review
> > Implementation Working Group (NomComRIWG) completed in June 2022, with
> > the submission of the final report
> > <
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom2-review-final-report-30jun22-en.pdf>.
> The ICANN Board took action on 16 March 2023 <
> https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-16-03-2023-en#section2.b>to
> accept the status of the NomCom2 Review implementation and initiate an
> ICANN Bylaws Amendment process. On 10 September 2023 <
> https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-10-09-2023-en#section2.b>the
> Board took action on next steps in Bylaws Amendment Process. If you would
> like more information, please feel free to review the NomCom Review
> workspace or reach out to me for further updates.
> >
> >
> > Thank you again for reaching out.
> >
> >
> > Basically the nomcom review team finshed their work in June 2022 so
> > exactly two years ago.
> >
> > To answer your question on NCSG or NCUC I attached the final report
> > where there is no mention of either. So we are speaking here of a board
> > resolution and my understanding is that they are leaving the floor open
> > to all constituencies to decide on how to proceed.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2024, 21:31 Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com
> > <mailto:benakin at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I got your email. It was just that the GNSO chair , did not copy
> > NCUC chair.
> >
> >
> > That it is worthwhile noting for future, although in his email he
> > made references to stakeholder group an constituencies.
> >
> > I hope you see my point.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Benjamin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2024, 9:35 PM Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com
> > <mailto:julf at julf.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I did copy ncuc-ec, assuming the chair would be part of it.
> >
> > Julf
> >
> > On 04/06/2024 18:59, Benjamin Akinmoyeje wrote:
> > > Hi Julf,
> > > Thank you for this email....but it is strange that the GNSO
> > chair has
> > > chosen not to copy the NCUC Chair in this email.
> > >
> > > NCUC appointed Pascal, our current Nomcom representative if I
> > am correct.
> > >
> > > It would be great if the GNSO chair could be pointed to this
> > omission.
> > >
> > > Just checking if things have changed.
> > >
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Benjamin
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2024 at 9:32 AM Johan Helsingius
> > <julf at julf.com <mailto:julf at julf.com>
> > > <mailto:julf at julf.com <mailto:julf at julf.com>>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > > Subject: NomCom changes
> > > Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 14:41:19 +0000
> > > From: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase at amazon.com
> > <mailto:dibiase at amazon.com>
> > > <mailto:dibiase at amazon.com <mailto:dibiase at amazon.com>>>
> > > To: aheineman at godaddy.com <mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com>
> > <mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com <mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com>>
> > > <aheineman at godaddy.com <mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com>
> > <mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com <mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com>>>,
> > Lori Schulman
> > > <lschulman at inta.org <mailto:lschulman at inta.org>
> > <mailto:lschulman at inta.org <mailto:lschulman at inta.org>>>, Cole,
> > Mason (POR)
> > > <MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>
> > <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com <mailto:MCole at perkinscoie.com>>>,
> > Johan
> > > Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>, sdemetriou at verisign.com
> > <mailto:sdemetriou at verisign.com>
> > > <mailto:sdemetriou at verisign.com
> > <mailto:sdemetriou at verisign.com>>
> > > <sdemetriou at verisign.com <mailto:sdemetriou at verisign.com>
> > <mailto:sdemetriou at verisign.com <mailto:sdemetriou at verisign.com
> >>>,
> > > philippe.fouquart at orange.com
> > <mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com>
> > <mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com
> > <mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com>>
> > > <philippe.fouquart at orange.com
> > <mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com>
> > <mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com
> > <mailto:philippe.fouquart at orange.com>>>
> > > CC: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org
> > <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>
> > > <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org
> > <mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>>, gnso-secs at icann.org
> > <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
> > > <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
> > > <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
> > <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Ashley, Julf, Lori, Mason, Philippe, and Samantha,
> > >
> > > I am writing to you all in your roles as Chairs of
> > Stakeholder
> > > Groups or
> > > Constituencies that appoint delegates to ICANN’s
> > Nominating Committee
> > > (NomCom).
> > >
> > > You may recall that the NomCom2 Review produced 27
> > recommendations,
> > > several of which relate to the composition and terms of
> > the NomCom. In
> > > order to effectuate these particular recommendations, the
> > ICANN Board
> > > approved Standard Bylaws Amendments in Articles 8, 12,
> > and 27.
> > >
> > > The Bylaws amendments made no change to the number and
> > nature of
> > > delegates from the GNSO (i.e., 1 each from the RySG,
> > RrSG, ISPCP, IPC,
> > > NCSG, and 2 from the BC), though the length of terms were
> > extended to
> > > two years (see Section 8.3 of the Bylaws). However, from
> > Article 27, in
> > > order to, “effectuate the introduction of the two-year
> > terms and
> > > support
> > > the goal of staggering delegate terms…”, three of the
> > GNSO delegates
> > > shall serve a one-year term. ARTICLE 27 TRANSITION
> > ARTICLE states that
> > > the GNSO is responsible for determining which three of
> > the seven
> > > delegates shall initially serve one-year terms.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, no guidance was provided on how to
> > identify the three of
> > > seven GNSO delegates to serve one-year terms. For
> > reference, the ALAC
> > > was also in the position of having to identify a subset
> > of delegates to
> > > serve one-year terms. They elected to rely on random
> > selection during a
> > > live call.
> > >
> > > The GNSO may want to rely on a similarly simple approach.
> > An important
> > > point in considering the approach is that the level of
> > > representation on
> > > the NomCom is not affected by the term-length. However,
> > the SG/Cs with
> > > one-year terms will have to replace those delegates after
> > one year
> > > rather than two.
> > >
> > > *Question: Do you believe there would be any objections
> > from your
> > > groups, and potentially delegates that you have already
> > identified, to
> > > proceeding with a simple path forward in which we
> > randomly select three
> > > of seven GNSO delegates to serve one-year terms?*
> > >
> > > If you believe that there may be concerns (e.g., we may
> > want to avoid
> > > having the one-year terms concentrated in particular
> > areas), please
> > > share them with Council leadership no later than 31 May
> 2024.
> > >
> > > If however there are no concerns, Council leadership can
> > perform the
> > > random selection process with staff or if you prefer, on
> > a Zoom call
> > > with all of you.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Greg DiBiase, GNSO Chair
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCUC-EC mailing list
> > NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org>
> > https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
> > <https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20240605/b0fb8b1d/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the NCUC-EC
mailing list