<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Kathy Kleiman asked: “p.s. how does 5 GNSO representatives but only
3 votes mean? ...(currently I think it is one rep, one vote).”<br>
<br>
The practice of having delegation memberships larger than delegation
voting strength can be a good one. Having membership larger than
delegation votes has two strengths. First, it generates a stronger
dialogue within delegations and with their constituencies, since it
requires some degree of consensus within the delegation. That can
give the delegation more accountability to its constituencies and
give constituencies more engagement in the deliberations leading up
to votes. Second, each delegation having a slightly larger
membership on the NomCom can deepen that delegation's engagement in
the reasoned discussion leading up to NomCom decisions. <br>
<br>
The allocation of votes across delegations (ASO: 3v/5mem; ccNSO:
3v/5mem; gNSO: 3v/4mem; Technical: 2v/3mem; GAC 1v/1-3mem) reflects
the proposed distribution of voting power. As Kathy points out, the
distribution of relative power across constituencies may be an issue
in its own right from a stakeholder perspective. <br>
<br>
This also touches on several issues that will continue to grow as
the Internet matures. First, what is the impact of a maturing
Internet ecosystem on who the stakeholders are, and where they go
(ICANN, new entities, etc.) to represent their interests. This will
have an impact on the scope of ICANN’s remit. Second, within ICANN’s
internal procedures and practices, what multistakeholder principles
and practices are observed and which are
not.
<br>
<br>
Sam L. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:ldw39vpc670ulv8icabei62j.1408930484183@email.android.com"
type="cite"><font color="#666666"><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces@lists.ncuc.org">ncuc-discuss-bounces@lists.ncuc.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ncuc-discuss">mailto:ncuc-discuss</a>-<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bounces@lists.ncuc.org">bounces@lists.ncuc.org</a>] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman<br>
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 10:51 AM<br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org">ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Delegate to the 2015
NomCom<br>
> <br>
> All,<br>
> My gut sense says that we should study this proposal
closely. It gives an awful<br>
> lot of weight and votes to Supporting Organizations that do
not, themselves,<br>
> allow ICANN a role in their governance (ASO, ccNSO), but
would now be having<br>
> a much greater weight in appointing representatives to our
governance (namely<br>
> the Board and its work with GNSO issues). The implications
could be astounding.<br>
> <br>
> I recommend that we talk more. I would value the review and
input of those<br>
> who served on the Nominating Committee, those who have a
strong knowledge<br>
> of the other supporting organizations, and everyone.<br>
> <br>
> Like the proposal to change the GAC's power, this is one
with great implications<br>
> for the GNSO.<br>
> Best,<br>
> Kathy<br>
> p.s. how does 5 GNSO representatives but only 3 votes mean?
Can anyone<br>
> previously on the NomCom talk about some complexities that
might add<br>
> (currently I think it is one rep, one vote).<br>
> </font></blockquote>
</body>
</html>