[council] Nominating Committee Draft Input

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Amr,

quick comments,
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 .

increasing the numbers of representatives may change dramatically the whole
dynamics : ASO and ccTLD having more voice than now.

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.

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.

I hope that Brenden can give better in insight on how things evolved in
nomcom in term of processes and procedures.

I agree with Avri that the size should be reduced, not happy with finding
some balance with CSG representation too.

I guess we reached at some level the limit of nomcom model.

Rafik

2014-12-18 4:18 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> I guess we’d need to settle this if we decide to NOT support the letter,
> and instead, support the BWG-NomCom’s recommendations.
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 8:09 PM, Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>  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>
> 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>
> 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>
>  *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/20141222/fcdb919b/attachment.htm>