Questions to the Board in ICANN60

[Raoul Plommer]

On 3 October 2017 at 23:23, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:


> I agree that NCSG should have the same number of seats as CSG.
>
> However, I don’t believe these seats should be selected by constituencies
> any more. (That is one reason why CSG has more seats, they have 3
> constituencies and we have two). I think the NCSG as a whole should select
> two Nomcom seats, and that CSG should also only have two.
>

I'd be very happy to see that happen.

You might very well be right about not mentioning the amount of
constituencies apart from saying that even though they were used to
allocate seats before, it's been outdated for years already. Another seat
for our stakeholdergroup is a minimum but if we have two for each SG, we
also need to increase the amount of GNSO seats at NomCom to eight. That
could in turn be rationalised with the high increase in the workload of the
GNSO in recent years.

I think it would be good to remind the board members of the current NomCom
imbalance at every possible turn as long as the review is still ongoing.
After that, it'll be locked away for quite some time again. This would be a
good opportunity for the board to make some actual research on the issue,
in answering the question - at least for the members that come and meet us.
I believe Matt is already very familiar with the issue, so it'd be nice to
get someone else to answer these questions.

-Raoul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20171004/7809b2a6/attachment.htm>