<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>This is not specified in the BWG-NomCom report, but rather left to the entities appointing NomCom representatives to work out themselves. There is a footnote on page 7 of the report that says:</div><div><br></div><div><i><b>“Entities may wish to create a procedure for the direction of voting for delegations and method of selection of delegation leader, but are not required to do so. However, any procedures for these or any other matter that are developed cannot permit reference back to the appointing entity, as that would impair the confidential nature of the NomCom’s selection and deliberative process.”</b></i></div><div><br></div><div>So, presumably, if these changes are to take place, the GNSO will have to determine the procedures by which the delegate votes are managed in cases of divergence in opinions between the NomCom members representing the GNSO.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div><div><br></div><div>Amr</div><br><div><div>On Dec 17, 2014, at 4:40 PM, Nicolas Adam <<a href="mailto:nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM">nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I agree very much. GNSO should push hard in this direction, if it
can.<br>
<br>
Do you know if there are rules for resolving the number of votes vs
number of nomcom rep discrepencie. In other words will the GNSO's 3
votes all be cast following the majority opinion of the 4 GNSO reps,
or would a 3-1 split call automatically for a 2-1 split in voting?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/12/2014 10:18 AM, Amr Elsadr
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:637D665B-06BF-498C-A130-2039910633BA@post.uit.no" type="cite">
<div>Hi Nicolas,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Can’t say I disagree with any of your reasoning RE: the
policy importance of the ASO and ccNSO. A better solution to
this IMHO would be to increase GNSO representation on the board
via direct elections (e.g.: 4 elected board members instead of
2/1 board member for each SG instead of 1 for each of the
houses), and equally decreasing the number of board members
appointed by the NomCom. That’d make a lot of sense to me.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This wasn’t originally my idea, but I do think it is a good
one.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Amr</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Dec 16, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Nicolas Adam <<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM">nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> I doubt the letter will
have much impact as it seems to me that everyone but
(GNSO's) CSG wins (we stay pretty much pat, or lose a bit
depending on how the delegated voting is resolved within the
GNSO). <br>
<br>
The recommendations are not so bad, and by that I mean when
one looked at the old configuration you could see why it
raised concerns and opposition. But I don't think there is a
good reason that there be that many votes passed on to ASO
and ccNSO though. I think 1 each was the proper way to go
when one look at either their representativeness or the
policy importance of these SO, but perhaps I do not know
these SOs enough ...<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/12/2014 7:12 AM, Amr
Elsadr wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:A6B7EC2C-6FD4-4491-A472-A8D935F08FE8@egyptig.org" type="cite"> Hi,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On the last GNSO Council meeting on December 11th
2014, one of the discussion topics was a GNSO Council
response to the report by the Board Working Group on the
Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom). The draft response up
for discussion is attached to the email below.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There had been a thread discussing this report on the
NCUC-Discuss list (public comment page found here: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bwg-nomcom-2014-08-21-en">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bwg-nomcom-2014-08-21-en</a>),
but there was never, to my recollection, a discussion
that took place on the NCSG level except at the last
NCSG Policy meeting on December 9th 2014.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This report is recommending some very significant
changes to the structure and voting methods of the
NomCom. On reading the draft response/letter attached,
you will note that the suggested response of the GNSO
Council would have been to make a case against the
recommendations of the BWG-NomCom, asking the ICANN
board to not adopt the recommendations in a board
resolution. From what I could tell, the GNSO Council was
prepared to go ahead and approve the letter as the
council response, but concerns were raised by a few NCSG
councillors (including myself) who did not agree with
the letter’s intent, and actually don’t have much of a
problem with the findings of the BWG-NomCom.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Since the reply phase of the public comment period on
this letter has been extended to January 9th 2015, the
GNSO Council decided to defer its approval of this
letter until the councillors of the NCSG (and other
SGs/constituencies) had a little more time to confer
with their members. I, personally, wouldn’t necessarily
mind being out-voted on this one primarily because (as
per the discussion on the associated NCUC thread) I feel
my opinion of supporting the recommendations of the
BWG-NomCom seems to be a minority position within the
NCSG. I would appreciate hearing thoughts on the report
and the draft council response from folks here. Although
the NCSG doesn’t require its councillors to be directed
in their votes, I would be willing to vote in favour of
this letter if I am convinced there is an overwhelming
support for it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Another option would be to suggest edits to the
letter, although I suspect that anything less than
condemnation of the BWG-NomCom’s recommendations would
probably be met with resistance from councillors of the
CSG. They are the most affected by these
recommendations, as their representation on the NomCom
would fall from 4 members to 1.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thoughts?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Amr</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<div>Begin forwarded message:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><b>From: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';">Marika Konings
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org">marika.konings@icann.org</a>><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><b>Subject: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';"><b>[council]
Nominating Committee Draft Input</b><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><b>Date: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';">December 2,
2014 at 12:59:55 AM GMT+1<br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><b>To: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';">Council GNSO
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>><br>
</span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><b>Cc: </b></span><span style="font-family:'Helvetica';">"<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:john@crediblecontext.com">john@crediblecontext.com</a>"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:john@crediblecontext.com">john@crediblecontext.com</a>><br>
</span></div>
<br>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break:
after-white-space; font-size: 14px; font-family:
Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>Dear All,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On behalf of John Berard, please find
attached a first draft of a possible GNSO
Council response to the public comment forum
on the Nominating Committee recommendations
from the Board Working Group. Please note that
further revisions may be made to this document
in the next couple of days by the drafters,
but in order to meet the document deadline, I
am sending this to you now.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Marika </div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></body></html>