<div dir="ltr">Hi Amr,<div><br></div><div>quick comments, </div><div>regarding the votes or polling in nomcom, it is mostly guesses . nobody is sure who voted for whom. there are some assumptions that some groups vote as block but that hard to prove and in some occasions I doubted that was the case. btw there are several parts of selection process which does not involve voting per se .</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">increasing the numbers of representatives may change dramatically the whole dynamics : ASO and ccTLD having more voice than now.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I am not sure to get the vote delegation and how it may work. GAC didn't use its existing seat in nomcom because the issue of representing the whole GAC, not sure that giving more seats will fix that.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">regarding terms, I would be happy to keep them as it is now and better to prevent former nomcom members from getting back after 2 terms. better to spend time in how to maintain institutional memory, sharing best practices and operating procedures than counting on veterans recollection.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I hope that Brenden can give better in insight on how things evolved in nomcom in term of processes and procedures.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I agree with Avri that the size should be reduced, not happy with finding some balance with CSG representation too.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I guess we reached at some level the limit of nomcom model.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div><div dir="ltr">Rafik<br></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-12-18 4:18 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org" target="_blank">aelsadr@egyptig.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>I guess we’d need to settle this if we decide to NOT support the letter, and instead, support the BWG-NomCom’s recommendations.</div><div><br></div><div>And having no prior experience on the NomCom myself, I can’t really give an informed opinion on the dynamics of that group. Perhaps some input from Brenden or previous NomCom reps of the NCUC would be helpful?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks.</div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Amr</div></font></span><div><div><br><div><div>On Dec 17, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Nicolas Adam <<a href="mailto:nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Shouldn't we settle this before giving our support to the letter? <br>
<br>
We will likely often be the minority ...<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 17/12/2014 1:44 PM, Amr Elsadr
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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" target="_blank">nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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>On 17/12/2014 10:18 AM, Amr
Elsadr wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote 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 href="mailto:nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">nickolas.adam@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<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>On 16/12/2014 7:12 AM,
Amr Elsadr wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote 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 href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bwg-nomcom-2014-08-21-en" target="_blank">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>
<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 href="mailto:marika.konings@icann.org" target="_blank">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 href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">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 href="mailto:john@crediblecontext.com" target="_blank">john@crediblecontext.com</a>"
<<a href="mailto:john@crediblecontext.com" target="_blank">john@crediblecontext.com</a>><br>
</span></div>
<br>
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;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></fieldset>
<br>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>