Fwd: [council] Nominating Committee Draft Input

[Nicolas Adam]

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).

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 ...

Nicolas

On 16/12/2014 7:12 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 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 
>> <mailto: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 
>> <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>> *Cc: *"john at crediblecontext.com <mailto:john at crediblecontext.com>" 
>> <john at crediblecontext.com <mailto: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/20141216/4a37a981/attachment.htm>