[council] Nominating Committee Draft Input

[Nicolas Adam]

Shouldn't we settle this before giving our support to the letter?

We will likely often be the minority ...


On 17/12/2014 1:44 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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:
>
> /*“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.”*/
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 4:40 PM, Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM 
> <mailto:nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>
>> 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/20141217/208f4d14/attachment.htm>