<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, generates a stronger
dialogue within delegations and with their constituencies, since it
requires some degree of consensus within the delegation, even if
here there is to be a split vote. 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 votes.<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. That may or may not be an
issue in its own right from a NCSG and stakeholder perspective. <br>
<br>
This also touches on two issues that will continue to grow as the
Internet matures. First, what is the impact of a maturing Internet
ecosystem on where stakeholders go (ICANN, elsewhere?) to represent
their interests. This will impact on the scope of ICANN’s remit.
Second, within ICANN’s internal procedures and practices, what
multistakeholder principles and practices are included and which are
not.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:d417c2f478244bfd88f42dbac6125e3b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<div class="WordSection1">
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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>
> </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>