Fwd: RE: Following up: NomCom RIWG call with GNSO community leaders (22 July 2020)
Stephanie E Perrin
stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA
Fri Jul 31 12:16:03 EEST 2020
Members may be aware that the issue of seats on the Nomcom has arisen in
the context of the NOMCOM review. We have been pushing for years to get
an additional seat (one for each constituency). As you can see from the
thread below, there are quite a few of our colleagues who feel that
status quo on NOMCOM is fine.
For those wishing to do the research on what is going on with the NOMCOM
review, the wiki is here
https://community.icann.org/display/OR/Review+Phase. Bruna attended the
meeting referenced in the thread below, and I am pushing for another
meeting. Our position of course will be one of fundamental fairness for
the two sides of the Non-contracted party house. We have a number of
members who have served on the Nomcom in the past, it would be great to
hear what they have to say about the proposed options, particularly
Option 2.
Stephanie Perrin
NCSG Chair
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: RE: Following up: NomCom RIWG call with GNSO community leaders
(22 July 2020)
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:48:32 +0000
From: Barbara Wanner <bwanner at uscib.org>
To: wuknoben at gmail.com <wuknoben at gmail.com>, 'Austin, Donna'
<Donna.Austin at team.neustar>, 'Heather Forrest' <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
CC: 'Drazek, Keith' <kdrazek at verisign.com>, aheineman at godaddy.com
<aheineman at godaddy.com>, 'Selli, Claudia' <claudia.selli at intl.att.com>,
'Dean Marks' <ed4coa at gmail.com>, 'Stephanie E Perrin'
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, 'Bruna Martins dos Santos'
<bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>, 'Joan Kerr' <joankerr at fbsc.org>,
jennifer.taylor at bt.com <jennifer.taylor at bt.com>, 'BC Executive
Committee' <bc-excomm at icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Thanks Donna and Wolf-Ulrich,
Looping in Mary this time. Apologies! Please see our email exchanges below.
Best,
Barbara
*From:* wuknoben at gmail.com <wuknoben at gmail.com>
*Sent:* Friday, July 31, 2020 12:46 PM
*To:* Barbara Wanner <bwanner at uscib.org>; 'Austin, Donna'
<Donna.Austin at team.neustar>; 'Heather Forrest' <haforrestesq at gmail.com>
*Cc:* 'Drazek, Keith' <kdrazek at verisign.com>; aheineman at godaddy.com;
'Selli, Claudia' <claudia.selli at intl.att.com>; 'Dean Marks'
<ed4coa at gmail.com>; 'Stephanie E Perrin'
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>; 'Bruna Martins dos Santos'
<bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>; 'Joan Kerr' <joankerr at fbsc.org>;
jennifer.taylor at bt.com; 'BC Executive Committee' <bc-excomm at icann.org>
*Subject:* AW: Following up: NomCom RIWG call with GNSO community
leaders (22 July 2020)
Thanks all and Donna in particular,
The ISPCP is still discussing the options. I think I’ll be back with a
common view soon (I also understood Tom and Cheryl that some more time
is available).
My personal view is to keep the status quo for the moment. The suggested
method to select the GNSO reps would create an enormous effort of work
and discussions within the GNSO which is not justified by the expected
outcome. There’s nothing more to fill than the existing number of slots.
And I doubt we’ll agree on a procedure before having performed a rather
holistic review.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
*Von:*Barbara Wanner <bwanner at uscib.org <mailto:bwanner at uscib.org>>
*Gesendet:* Freitag, 31. Juli 2020 14:50
*An:* Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar
<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>>; Heather Forrest
<haforrestesq at gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>
*Cc:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com
<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>; aheineman at godaddy.com
<mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com>; Selli, Claudia
<claudia.selli at intl.att.com <mailto:claudia.selli at intl.att.com>>;
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wuknoben at gmail.com <mailto:wuknoben at gmail.com>>;
Dean Marks <ed4coa at gmail.com <mailto:ed4coa at gmail.com>>; Stephanie E
Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>; Bruna Martins dos Santos
<bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>>; Joan Kerr
<joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>>; jennifer.taylor at bt.com
<mailto:jennifer.taylor at bt.com>; BC Executive Committee
<bc-excomm at icann.org <mailto:bc-excomm at icann.org>>
*Betreff:* RE: Following up: NomCom RIWG call with GNSO community
leaders (22 July 2020)
Thanks Donna, Heather, Mary, and all,
The BC has not formally replied to the NomCom RIWG yet, but shares many
of the concerns articulated by the IPC and would prefer Option 1 (status
quo).
In the interim, we have gathered some historical background explaining
why the BC was allocated small- and large-business seats on the NomCom
back in the early 2000 period and why we feel this allocation continues
to be appropriate. We would welcome an opportunity share this via a
brief follow-up teleconference if others are amenable.
Thanks, and let us know what the next steps will be.
Best regards,
Barbara
*From:* Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar
<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>>
*Sent:* Thursday, July 30, 2020 9:32 PM
*To:* Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com
<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>
*Cc:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com
<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>; aheineman at godaddy.com
<mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com>; Selli, Claudia
<claudia.selli at intl.att.com <mailto:claudia.selli at intl.att.com>>;
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wuknoben at gmail.com <mailto:wuknoben at gmail.com>>;
Dean Marks <ed4coa at gmail.com <mailto:ed4coa at gmail.com>>; Barbara Wanner
<bwanner at uscib.org <mailto:bwanner at uscib.org>>; Stephanie E Perrin
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>; Bruna Martins dos Santos
<bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>>; Joan Kerr
<joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>>; jennifer.taylor at bt.com
<mailto:jennifer.taylor at bt.com>
*Subject:* Re: Following up: NomCom RIWG call with GNSO community
leaders (22 July 2020)
Thanks Heather
I understood from Tom and Cheryl that we had more time to work this
through, but I appreciate that it wasn’t clear what our next steps might
be whether they be collective or individual.
It’s good to have the IPC position as it would be good to understand if
others have also submitted a reply to the RIWG.
Donna
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2020, at 6:17 PM, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com
<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks very much, Donna, for the initiative.
I'm happy to share below what the IPC provided to the NomCom RIWG
after our call on the 22nd. I'm mindful that we were instructed to
reply by 31 July (today), which is why I sent out my response at the
beginning of the week after it had been confirmed by the IPC
membership.
I will raise the four suggested options with the IPC leadership
before offering any sort of firm response, but I would personally
gauge the IPC's input on the matter so far as to align with Option 1
(status quo) unless we have this deeper, community-wide assessment
recommended by the Independent Reviewers.
Best wishes to you and all,
Heather
Heather Forrest<haforrestesq at gmail.com
<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>
Mon, Jul 27, 11:13 AM (4 days ago)
to Tom, nomcomriwg, Jean-Baptiste, Lars, IPC-Leadership at icann.org
<mailto:IPC-Leadership at icann.org>, Chantelle
Dear Tom and RIWG colleagues,
Thank you for the call of 22 July and this opportunity to provide
the IPC's input into the Bylaws change that is proposed in relation
to the redistribution of GNSO NomCom seats. We particularly
appreciate the opportunity to ask questions through the SG/C
leaders' call on the 22nd as to the background and context of the
proposal. We have reflected carefully in reviewing the proposed
redline draft.
*The IPC wishes to advise that we do not support the proposed Bylaws
amendment.**The IPC wishes also to advise that we do not support the
NomCom RIWG imposing a solution of its choosing on the GNSO. *
We are sure that you can appreciate the sensitivities that surround
any proposal to change the NomCom seats to reflect the GNSO Council
structure. The GNSO Council has, as was highlighted in the call on
22 July, a precisely identified, narrow remit as manager of the
policy development process. The IPC has long held and expressed the
position that the GNSO Council structure itself does "not accurately
represent constituencies", as the Independent Review Final Report
urges the NomCom structure to do
(https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.pdf
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.pdf__;!!N14HnBHF!o23tKdijKNtJPHSXdtn7niwSmepj_X6FG2sUqkTE5e9395FgfoGL4xpsIoeB5Wa_3uFi$> at
p 25). The GNSO is certainly evolving, but this goes well beyond
simply the addition of the NPOC structure (notably the only example
raised in our call of the 22nd). The New gTLD Program of 2012 has
fundamentally broken down the previously clear, bright lines between
contracted and non-contracted party. Many IPC members are also
represented in other GNSO Stakeholder Groups and
Constituencies. Members of the GNSO’s SGs and Cs also participate in
other ICANN structures, including in particular the At-Large, as
well as the ccNSO and SSAC. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to
mirror this complicated and ineffectual state of affairs in
designating NomCom seats. Further, the present structural
deficiencies will inevitably frustrate any effort to set up some
sort of new committee or mechanism within the GNSO for deciding on
who fills these seats on a rolling basis each year.
While we appreciate the suggestion that another way of approaching
this could be for the GNSO SG/Cs themselves to propose a solution,
the IPC questions whether we (or indeed the RIWG) have sufficient
information to make informed decisions. We believe that neither we
nor the RIWG should be rushing to change such an important process
to ICANN's accountability without clear, documented justification.
To that end we note that, in making Recommendation 10
("Representation on the NomCom should be re-balanced immediately and
then be reviewed every five years."), the Independent Reviewers
advised: "A recommendation on a precise way to rebalance the NomCom
would require a comprehensive assessment of representation within
the ICANN community, including a full understanding of the history
and possible future of representation within the SOs/ACs." While we
appreciate that Rec 10 is a Board-approved recommendation, we agree
with the Independent Reviewers as to the necessity of this
comprehensive assessment, and consider that this should take into
account the impact of new gTLDs on _all ICANN structures_, not
simply the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies of the GNSO. While
the upcoming GNSO Review could offer an opportunity for such a
"comprehensive assessment of representation" within the GNSO
structure, this should only be part of a broader exercise of the
advised "comprehensive assessment of representation within the ICANN
community".
We will be pleased to engage further with the RIWG's processes and
provide further input as is helpful.
Sincerely yours,
Heather Forrest, IPC President
On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 9:55 AM Austin, Donna
<Donna.Austin at team.neustar <mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>> wrote:
**Removing ICANN Staff from this thread**
Hi All
It seems that we have a collective decision to make on this
issue and I’ve provided some suggestions below for consideration.
I’m still not convinced that the proposed solution is really
addressing Recommendation 10, and on reading the recommendation
in full (provided below) it seems that the intent of the
rebalancing is really not being addressed by the solution
proposed by the NomCom RIWG. However, I do recall that Tom and
Cheryl did say that they had explored a number of options and
this is their recommended solution.
Based on the call last week expanding the number of NomCom
members is not possible so the maximum number of seats available
to the GNSO is seven. It also seems that the reason the GNSO
representation has been called out is related to the BC having
two representatives on the NomCom and the NPOC not being
represented.
Barbara, I believe you expressed the view that the BC wants to
maintain two representatives and we were waiting on a response
to Ashley’s question about the rationale for the original
decision to have two BC representatives.
I believe we have four options:
1.Reject the proposed change to the bylaws in favour of the
status quo. This would require agreement from all GNSO SGs/Cs.
2.Agree to the proposed change to the bylaws that removes the
prescriptive representation and develop our own selection
process. This selection process could be the same that we
undertake now in selecting our respective candidates and
providing these to the NomCom. The process could be added to the
GNSO Operating Procedures (I say this not knowing what the
process would be, but this makes the most sense). However, we
would need to agree on the allocation of the seven slots—the
most pragmatic solution would be to allocate a representative
from each SG/C of the GNSO.
3.Suggest a modification to the bylaws as currently stated to
include 1 representative from the NPOC and reduce the BC
representation from 2 to 1. We could also consider adding that
in the event the composition of the GNSO changes that
representation will be reconsidered (or words to that effect).
4.Submit individual responses to the NomCom RIWG proposal and
let them decide how to move forward, which would likely leave us
with Option 2.
Look forward to your thoughts.
Donna
*Recommendation 10: Representation on the NomCom should be
re-balanced immediately and then be reviewed every five years. *
Periodically reviewing and re-balancing the NomCom makeup
ensures that it appropriately reflects the ICANN community, both
from a historic and prospective vantage point. A recommendation
on a precise way to rebalance the NomCom would require a
comprehensive assessment of representation within the ICANN
community, including a full understanding of the history and
possible future of representation within the SOs/ACs. It will
also require input from the Board and the formation of a
cross-constituency working group which includes representation
from emerging communities or groups within the ICANN community.
During our assessment, we heard from a large number of
individuals who suggested the NomCom was unbalanced, both across
organizations and within organizations (i.e., across
constituencies within an SO/AC). Not surprisingly, the opinions
we heard varied widely and were often inconsistent with each
other. For example, some people indicated that one SO/AC was
overrepresented in terms of the number of delegates sent to the
NomCom from that SO/AC, while others thought such representation
was needed given the relatively greater diversity of viewpoints
held by constituencies within that SO/AC compared to other SOs/ACs.
Ultimately, any rebalancing of the NomCom will require a
detailed assessment of all ICANN stakeholder groups. ICANN
should therefore convene a working group immediately, and every
five years thereafter, to study how best to rebalance the NomCom
based on input from each of the organizations with
representation on the NomCom and the broader ICANN community.
Our recommendation of five year intervals is based on ICANN’s
typical review requirements for organizations, as well as our
experience with other similar, volunteer-based organizations.
*From:* Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong at icann.org
<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>]
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 29, 2020 1:19 PM
*To:* Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com
<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>; aheineman at godaddy.com
<mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com>; Austin, Donna
<Donna.Austin at team.neustar <mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>>;
Selli, Claudia <claudia.selli at intl.att.com
<mailto:claudia.selli at intl.att.com>>; Heather Forrest
<haforrestesq at gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>;
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wuknoben at gmail.com
<mailto:wuknoben at gmail.com>>; Dean Marks <ed4coa at gmail.com
<mailto:ed4coa at gmail.com>>; Barbara Wanner <bwanner at uscib.org
<mailto:bwanner at uscib.org>>; Stephanie E Perrin
<stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA
<mailto:stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>>; Bruna Martins dos
Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>>;
Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>>;
jennifer.taylor at bt.com <mailto:jennifer.taylor at bt.com>
*Cc:* Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen at icann.org
<mailto:chantelle.doerksen at icann.org>>; Carlos Reyes
<carlos.reyes at icann.org <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>>
*Subject:* Following up: NomCom RIWG call with GNSO community
leaders (22 July 2020)
Dear GNSO community leaders,
We write to follow up on the call that you did with Tom Barrett,
Cheryl Langdon Orr and Zahid Jamil (chairs of the NomCom Review
Implementation Working Group) last week. We understand that many
groups are continuing to discuss the topic and may wish to
communicate individually with the NomCom RIWG. As members of the
Policy Team that supports your governance work, however, we
thought we should ask if you would like us to convene a call for
you as GNSO community group leaders.
We ask also because the NomCom RIWG may be expecting a response
from the GNSO community about their proposal to amend the
Bylaws. In addition, it may be helpful to see if there are
alternative options that you can suggest to the RIWG for their
consideration.
Please let us know if you would like us to schedule a call for
you. We will also be grateful if you can respond to Chantelle’s
query (below) about posting the materials from the call with
Tom, Cheryl and Zahid to the RIWG’s public mailing list. Thank you!
Best regards,
Chantelle, Carlos & Mary
*From: *Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen at icann.org
<mailto:chantelle.doerksen at icann.org>>
*Date: *Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 18:14
*To: *"Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com
<mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>, "aheineman at godaddy.com
<mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com>" <aheineman at godaddy.com
<mailto:aheineman at godaddy.com>>, "Donna.Austin at team.neustar
<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>" <Donna.Austin at team.neustar
<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>>, "Selli, Claudia"
<claudia.selli at intl.att.com
<mailto:claudia.selli at intl.att.com>>, Heather Forrest
<haforrestesq at gmail.com <mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>>,
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wuknoben at gmail.com
<mailto:wuknoben at gmail.com>>, Dean Marks <ed4coa at gmail.com
<mailto:ed4coa at gmail.com>>, Barbara Wanner <bwanner at uscib.org
<mailto:bwanner at uscib.org>>, Stephanie E Perrin
<stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA
<mailto:stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>>, Bruna Martins dos
Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>>,
Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>>,
"jennifer.taylor at bt.com <mailto:jennifer.taylor at bt.com>"
<jennifer.taylor at bt.com <mailto:jennifer.taylor at bt.com>>, Tom
Barrett <tbarrett at encirca.com <mailto:tbarrett at encirca.com>>,
Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com
<mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>, "internet at jamilandjamil.com
<mailto:internet at jamilandjamil.com>" <internet at jamilandjamil.com
<mailto:internet at jamilandjamil.com>>, Carlos Reyes
<carlos.reyes at icann.org <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>>, Lars
Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann at icann.org
<mailto:lars.hoffmann at icann.org>>, Jean-Baptiste Deroulez
<jean-baptiste.deroulez at icann.org
<mailto:jean-baptiste.deroulez at icann.org>>, "Larisa B. Gurnick"
<larisa.gurnick at icann.org <mailto:larisa.gurnick at icann.org>>,
Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
*Cc: *Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen at icann.org
<mailto:chantelle.doerksen at icann.org>>
*Subject: *NomComRIWG and GNSO SG/C leadership call materials:
attendance, recording, chat | Wednesday, 22 July 2020
Dear all,
Below are the call materials from the NomComRIWG and GNSO SG/C
leadership call held on Wednesday, 22 July 2020.
*Question:*There is a request to see if this group agrees to
share the enclosed call materials with the entire NomComRIWG for
their own discussions, via posting the materials below to the
NomComRIWG’s public mailing list.
Please let us know what your thoughts are. Thank you in advance.
Best,
Chantelle
**
*Attendance*: Ashley Heineman, Barbara Wanner, Bruna Santos,
Carlos Reyes, Chantelle Doerksen, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna
Austin, Heather Forrest, Jean-Baptiste Deroulez, Jenn Taylor
Hodges, Keith Drazek, Lars Hoffmann, Marie-Noemie Marques, Mary
Wong, Tom Barrett, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Zahid Jamil
*Zoom Recording:*
https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/w9REDrH81VJLQKfgxB2ceJUcENvEaaa81yRNqfUFmhnVsyK_O90mtDdkHaSucEMi
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/rec/share/w9REDrH81VJLQKfgxB2ceJUcENvEaaa81yRNqfUFmhnVsyK_O90mtDdkHaSucEMi__;!!N14HnBHF!srNw9MopNTWMkjjG3V2vqAxXhxwbouy0YtBOYEpfcE119I7aLuE5gLDA_TI33N643-ck$>
*Chat:*
14:02:37 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Good to go then
14:14:25 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : and the Independent Examiner
was noting the lack of NPOC representation specifically
14:15:04 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : GNSO of course still has the
largest influence as such with its 7 seats
14:15:34 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : next is 5 with ALAC Regional
interests
14:15:54 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : then the rest is no more than 2
14:15:59 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : mostly 1
14:17:45 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben : What is the rationale for
keeping the NCA number limited by 19?
14:18:45 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : it is an approved
recommendation of the Independent Examiner @Wolf-Urlich
14:19:01 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : we mearly Implement those
Board approved recommendations
14:19:07 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben : Thanks Cheryl
14:19:12 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : NP
14:19:29 From Heather Forrest : Further to Donna's point we do
not have a mechanism for doing this selection, and this is not
within scope of the GNSO Council (which is tasked with managing
the policy development process)
14:19:32 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : That was the Ind Examiners
observation
14:19:50 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : perfect solution @Donna
14:20:11 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben : @Donna +1
14:20:27 From Mary Wong : @Heather, the distinction with the
Council’s remit is why the request was addressed to the SG & C
chairs, with Keith (as GNSO Chair) cc’d for information.
14:20:45 From Heather Forrest : Very much appreciated, Mary
14:28:19 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : This was not a negotiation
we want your feedback however specifically on the proposed bylaw
language
14:28:45 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : I was assuring you we have
explored as many possabilities as we can
14:28:55 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : this leaves the GNSO seat #
as is
14:29:03 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : the most palatable we felt
14:29:20 From Heather Forrest : Is there a documented concern
from GNSO (not from an outside consultant) that the GNSO wants
control? Or that the GNSO SG/Cs themselves feel the need for change?
14:30:38 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : I believe the Ind Examiners
report was acting based specifically on concerns or complaints
from part(s) of the GNSO
14:31:05 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : that documentation can
perhaps be sorced from MSSI
14:31:25 From Heather Forrest : @Cheryl - sorry to push, but
bylaws amendment means we need to be more than just "I believe"
- such a major decision requires evidence-based decision making
14:31:41 From Heather Forrest : I think we need to chase the
documentation down
14:32:19 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : ALSO note there will be
other bylaw changes required as a result of our required
Implementation of these 27 Recs, so *IF* the Rec 10 results in
a Bylaws change it can go woth that set
14:32:23 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : with
14:33:12 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Correct @Kieth
14:34:27 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : It could rotate all its seats
or any combination therein year by year if you so wish
14:34:52 From Mary Wong : @Heather, Policy staff will consult
with our MSSI colleagues regarding the documentation you requested.
14:35:05 From Barbara Wanner : Thanks Keith -- great point about
political sensitivities in light of all that we must address now
from a policy standpoint.
14:35:10 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : weunderstand the friction
point issue but US implementing a change from the outside may
have an effect as well (I strongly suspect)
14:35:31 From Jean-Baptiste Deroulez : As a follow-up to
Cheryl’s comment above, here is the link to the independent
examiner final report on rec. 10:
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.pdf
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.pdf__;!!N14HnBHF!srNw9MopNTWMkjjG3V2vqAxXhxwbouy0YtBOYEpfcE119I7aLuE5gLDA_TI33DcMTjEr$>
, see p25-26.
14:35:45 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Thanks @JPD
14:36:20 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : JBD
14:37:11 From Heather Forrest : Thanks very much, Jean-Baptiste.
Is there "a comprehensive
assessment of representation within the ICANN community,
including a full understanding of the
history and possible future of representation within the
SOs/ACs" as per that recommendation 10 p 25?
14:37:22 From Heather Forrest : Great question, Donna, thank you
14:40:49 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : That COuld occur at a future
holistic ICANN wide review point I suspect @Heather
14:41:07 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : we are trapped between hstory
and change
14:42:19 From Heather Forrest : My fault, Tom, for not being
more specific - sorry
14:43:13 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : and some of their earlier
presentations might also give background as well, again MSSI
have the links to hand I suspect
14:43:54 From Heather Forrest : +1 Donna - likewise - very much
appreciate the additional information
14:43:59 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Thanks everyone we really
appreciate al your time as well.
14:44:24 From Barbara Wanner : Appreciate the time you gave us
to think this through further!
14:44:29 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : We understand @Donna
14:44:55 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : We thought not @Donna
14:46:07 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Bye for now
14:46:07 From Barbara Wanner : @ Heather agree and thank you!
14:46:09 From Donna Austin, Neustar : Thanks all
14:46:09 From Ashley Heineman : thanks.
14:46:10 From Heather Forrest : bye all, thank you
14:46:14 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben : thanks and bye
14:46:19 From Jean-Baptiste Deroulez : Work of the NomComRIWG
can be followed here: https://community.icann.org/x/aBpIBg
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/x/aBpIBg__;!!N14HnBHF!srNw9MopNTWMkjjG3V2vqAxXhxwbouy0YtBOYEpfcE119I7aLuE5gLDA_TI33JIYSDhW$>.
thank you.
14:46:21 From Bruna Santos : thanks and byw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200731/5b149d63/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list