Fwd: [council] Nominating Committee Draft Input

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

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.

There had been a thread discussing this report on the NCUC-Discuss list (public comment page found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bwg-nomcom-2014-08-21-en), 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.

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.

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.

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.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Amr

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Subject: [council] Nominating Committee Draft Input
> Date: December 2, 2014 at 12:59:55 AM GMT+1
> To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Cc: "john at crediblecontext.com" <john at crediblecontext.com>
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> 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.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Marika 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141216/8cc2a4c6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NomCom reply.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 29696 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141216/8cc2a4c6/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141216/8cc2a4c6/attachment-0001.htm>