[council] Nominating Committee Draft Input

[Nicolas Adam]

I agree very much. GNSO should push hard in this direction, if it can.

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?



On 17/12/2014 10:18 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> 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.
>
> This wasn’t originally my idea, but I do think it is a good one.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Dec 16, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM 
> <mailto:nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>
>> 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/20141217/892be8ea/attachment.htm>