URGENT - Time sensitive What is your view on on the question of rebalancing the Nominating Committee (NomCom)

Benjamin Akinmoyeje benakin at GMAIL.COM
Tue Jun 27 14:36:17 EEST 2023 

Dear NCUC members,

Thank you everyone so far for sharing your views and responses to the
questions the interim chair has asked.

The challenge I have is that I am still trying to figure out NCUC's
response to these questions. You all have turned the lists to NCSG response
while I was requesting for NCUC 's response.

I hereby request again for NCUC response by those who have not commented or
reacted on the list. 🙏, irrespective of how similar they may be.

I look forward to more reactions about this matter, I also would like to
get the views of our members who have been former or current NomCom
delegates.

Kind regards,
Benjamin

On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 4:52 PM Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
wrote:

> One possible compromise would be having two seats for CPS, two for
> NCSG (NCUC and NPOC one each) and one for NCPH as a whole. That'd mean
> we'd have fun negotiating about that fifth seat with CSG every time...
> or maybe we could just agree with them on strict alternation.
>
> That would give both CSG and NCSG two and a half seats, as it were.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 09:24:21AM +0300, Raoul Plommer (plommer at GMAIL.COM)
> wrote:
> >
> > The way I see it, is either adding one seat for NomCom and having two
> seats
> > per SG or reducing three GNSO seats (all from the CSG) and having one
> each.
> > If NomCom is too big as it is, then it would make more sense to reduce
> the
> > amount of GNSO seats. The only compromise I could see happening is
> taking 2
> > off CSG and adding one to NCSG, reducing the total number of GNSO seats
> to
> > six.
> >
> > The point is, if we're supposed to pretend to be a remotely functional
> > multistakeholder model, the commercial group should be just as big as its
> > noncommercial counterpart.
> >
> > -Raoul
> >
> > On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 at 07:31, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Judith
> > >
> > > Farzaneh
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:32 PM Judith Hellerstein <
> > > judith at jhellerstein.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> HI Farzi,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for your comments and views.  I have just finished off two
> years
> > >> on NomCom, and so I take issue with your statement that NomCom is not
> doing
> > >> well.  Please explain what you mean by that.
> > >>
> > >
> > > As we say in Farsi let me put the shyness aside and ask you, who are
> you
> > > on NCSG and where have you been. I do not remember you being appointed
> by
> > > us. So you were representing ALAC. We are not a family. Not even a
> > > dysfunctional one. ALAC does not understand our GNSO complexities and
> that
> > > has always been a problem. But I will tell you what I mean by  NomCom
> not
> > > doing well for the past 5-6 years.
> > >
> > >> I am not privy to explain what transpired this year, but we have
> worked
> > >> very hard to get independent thinkers and outsiders onto the boards
> and
> > >> leadership positions.  This year we had a much larger pool thanks to
> the
> > >> addition of a recruitment firm helping to outreach to candidates for
> the
> > >> GNSO, CCNSO, and ALAC leadership position.   The delegates work hard
> to get
> > >> independent and outside thinkers to fill the leadership positions but
> we
> > >> work with the priorities that each constituency has given to Nomcom.
> If
> > >> these priorities for the GNSO slots are not accurate than they should
> be
> > >> revised
> > >>
> > > Oh good. Because we see the appointment of former intellectual property
> > > constituencies members. And frankly since NCAs prolly better not be
> from
> > > NCSG either I am glad to hear that you have a more diverse pool.
> > > a few years ago nomcom went through a really strange operational
> procedure
> > > change. led by our unsurprisingly CSG (BC and IPC) colleagues to make
> it
> > > less transparent all under the disguise of confidentiality. At some
> point
> > > NomCom appointed an NCA who was an employee of ITU at the time! NomCom
> > > appointed people with conflict of interest to various groups, see the
> > > ccnso letter here
> > > <
> https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sataki-to-nomcomm-29sep17-en.pdf
> >.
> > > When you were serving, maybe it got better. But we still observed the
> > > musical chair. People from GAC later on were appointed to various
> positions
> > > that were supposed to be non-governmental, noncommercial.
> > >
> > >> The public comments on the NomCom2 Review report we were just asked to
> > >> comment on the items in the report that were up for validation.
> > >> Unfortunately, the issue of NomCom REbalancing was withdrawn from the
> > >> report, and so we could not comment on it. This is why there were two
> > >> processes. The letter and the response to the public comments.  I just
> > >> worked on the response to the public comments and worked closely with
> the
> > >> NCUC rep Peter on these comments.
> > >>
> > > Good. So you are, I believe an NCSG member now working to advance our
> > > interest. Allow me to take this moment and tell you that while we are
> > > collegial with ALAC we don't agree on everything.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Stefanie is correct in her analysis and her review. There does not
> seem
> > >> to be an appetite or interest to expand the NomCom beyond the current
> > >> numbers.  What there was interest in is having each constituency be
> > >> responsible for each of their delegates.
> > >>
> > > Frankly, I don't give a damn about appetite whatsoever, we are not
> asking
> > > for expansion. If the number of members reduced, but we are given equal
> > > delegation I think we would be happy. If it's reducing the number of
> > > advisory committee members to make it smaller, so be it! less travel,
> less
> > > resources and same results!
> > >
> > >> Also from what I have heard while at ICANN 77 is that the GAC is
> > >> rethinking their approach and may indeed begin to use its seat in the
> > >> coming years.  Happy to be of help and share my experience on NomCom
> and I
> > >> am sure Peter will share his experience.
> > >>
> > > Oh ok. so insisting on having advisory committees be a voting member
> > > backfired. Good good. But advisory committees should also appoint an
> equal
> > > number of  members. One each?
> > >
> > >> Best,
> > >>
> > >> Judith
> > >>
> > >>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> > >> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO
> > >> Hellerstein & Associates
> > >> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008
> > >> Phone: (202) 362-5139  Skype ID: judithhellerstein
> > >> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517
> > >> E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com   Website: www.jhellerstein.com
> > >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/
> > >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 6/27/23 12:21 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I made some changes:
> > >>
> > >>
> https://docs.google.com/file/d/1garMNp-pIeJ-dp2NAZjLIdNTuvDQmfoB/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msword
> > >>
> > >> We need to ask for equal number of delegates and get it done with.
> NomCom
> > >> is not doing well anyway and I am not sure it’s because of the
> composition.
> > >> Anyway. Comments attached. Please discuss these issues on the general
> > >> member mailing list so that we know what is going on.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:06 PM Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi
> > >>> I tend to support this position, but then, we needed to have an
> internal
> > >>> mechanism within the NCSG to manage the outcome, assuming our
> request is
> > >>> yet to be accepted and how to make due in terms of rotating our
> slots to
> > >>> ensure even representation within the NCSG family, especially as it
> may
> > >>> affect NPOC that largely has been missing in representation without
> much
> > >>> home grown support within the NCSG.
> > >>>
> > >>> Internal democracy/MoU will prepare our minds in the journey ahead
> so as
> > >>> to rebalance even within, bearing in mind that NomCom rebalancing is
> not
> > >>> only about us (NCSG) but depends on the total acceptable number for
> the
> > >>> larger NomCom to work with as may be approved.
> > >>>
> > >>> At the same time lets maintain equal footing for equal quota between
> > >>> non-commercial and commercial as annunciated.
> > >>>
> > >>> ___________________
> > >>> REMMY NWEKE,  *mNUJ, mNGE, mGOCOP*
> > >>> Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor,
> > >>> *ITREALMS Media* group [*Multiple-award winning medium*]
> > >>> (ITREALMS <http://www.itrealms.com.ng/>, DigitalSENSE Business
> Magazine
> > >>> <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; NaijaAgroNet
> > >>> <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng/>)
> > >>> No. 36 Afariogun Street, Oshodi-Lagos
> > >>> <
> https://www.google.com/maps/search/No.+36+Afariogun+Street,+Oshodi-Lagos?entry=gmail&source=g
> >
> > >>> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, T: @ITRealms
> > >>> <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms>
> > >>> @DigitalSENSEng
> > >>> 2023 *Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D*, Thursday June 8
> > >>> <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/>
> > >>> 2023 *ITREALMS* e-Waste Dialogue, Thursday December 7
> > >>> <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/>
> > >>> @Welcome Center Hotels, Int'l Airport Road, Lagos-Nigeria
> > >>> <http://welcomecentrehotels.com/>
> > >>> Former Vice President, African Civil Society on Information Society
> > >>> (ACSIS)
> > >>> ______________________________________________________________
> > >>> *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and
> > >>> attachments
> > >>> are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is
> intended
> > >>> only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept
> > >>> legal
> > >>> responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the
> > >>> intended
> > >>> recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document
> and
> > >>> do
> > >>> not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor
> make
> > >>> any copies. Violators may face court persecution.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 12:30 AM farzaneh badii <
> > >>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I absolutely disagree to make this a constituency matter. It is the
> > >>>> card that they played for so long to argue that we didnt have as
> many
> > >>>> constituency. As stakeholder group, if they have 3 reps we should
> have 3
> > >>>> reps. If we have one as stakeholder group they should have one. If
> you
> > >>>> wanna make them smaller stop having 5 ALAC/at large delegates. No
> reason
> > >>>> for that they are an advisory committee like everyone else.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I keep hearing that we should compromise on this and that and that
> we
> > >>>> have better things to do. What are these better things? We are here
> to
> > >>>> advance our interest. By sitting on policy positions we cannot get
> > >>>> anywhere.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Stephanie, if you have written something great. If not we just turn
> my
> > >>>> response with correction to a statement and send it off. We can’t
> wait
> > >>>> forever.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 6:53 PM Stephanie E Perrin <
> > >>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> The fault is not Caleb's it is mine.  I have been working on that
> > >>>>> draft.  Judith Hellerstein was kind enough to draft the response
> to the
> > >>>>> call for comments, and I had intended to circulate the draft for
> comments
> > >>>>> this past weekend.  Unfortunately a health emergency in my family
> has
> > >>>>> dragged me away.  There was quite a bit of discussion around the
> meeting in
> > >>>>> Washington on this topic, and it also had come up at Council.
> Council is
> > >>>>> just now preparing its draft response to the Board.  We have till
> the 30th
> > >>>>> and Julf is standing by to send the final draft, so please lets
> not panic.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> There is strong opposition to growing the Nomcom, as it grows it
> > >>>>> becomes more unwieldy, and they are already working very hard. So
> I would
> > >>>>> submit that asking for three delegates, just like the commercial
> group, is
> > >>>>> a non-starter.  However, the battle to get a seat for NPOC, at
> least at the
> > >>>>> GNSO level, appears to be turning in our favour.  Please see my
> comments re
> > >>>>> the questions below, and expect to see a tidied up draft comment
> shortly.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 2023-06-26 5:50 p.m., Raoul Plommer wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Caleb,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> You received that very email on 27th of April, and since you've
> been
> > >>>>> preparing the draft since, perhaps you could finally share your
> work with
> > >>>>> us so we could make that statement together as a stakeholder group?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -Raoul
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 21:46, farzaneh badii <
> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Where are NCSG's joint recommendations? NCUC can reinforce the
> > >>>>>> message.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Farzaneh
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 2:44 PM Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele <
> > >>>>>> muyiwacaleb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I believe NCUC can consolidate the response with the NCSG's joint
> > >>>>>>> recommendations.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> This will allow us to go out on a united front as non-commercial.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 1:40 PM farzaneh badii <
> > >>>>>>> farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Benjamin,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Not only do we need to respond, we should reach out to our
> friends
> > >>>>>>>> and colleagues and tell them what the problem is. See the
> > >>>>>>>> responses below:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 1:57 PM Benjamin Akinmoyeje <
> > >>>>>>>> benakin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Dear NCUC members,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Good day and I hope your week is going well.
> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you for participating in the NCUC Readout session.  As
> > >>>>>>>>> discussed in the meeting today, please share  your response to
> these
> > >>>>>>>>> questions to gather our community views.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> ICANN Board Chair Tripti Sinha is  requesting feedback from
> your
> > >>>>>>>>> respective community groups on the question of rebalancing the
> > >>>>>>>>> Nominating Committee (NomCom) by **30 June 2023**. As noted in
> > >>>>>>>>> the letter, the ICANN Board wishes to engage with the community
> > >>>>>>>>> to understand the community’s views on this topic. The Board is
> > >>>>>>>>> specifically seeking input on the following questions:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 1. What does it mean to have a balanced NomCom at a point in
> > >>>>>>>>> time? For example, what criteria would you apply to measure or
> assess
> > >>>>>>>>> whether the
> > >>>>>>>>> NomCom is balanced? And further, how can one test whether or
> not
> > >>>>>>>>> the NomCom is balanced?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> A balanced NomCom means that the noncommercial and commercial
> > >>>>>>>> stakeholder groups as predicted have the same number of
> delegates. For
> > >>>>>>>> example, if the Commercial Group has three delegates, the
> noncommercial
> > >>>>>>>> group should have three delegates. This is the least that can
> be done when
> > >>>>>>>> rebalancing.It should be remodeled based on GNSO council
> composition.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 2. Do you support the view that the current composition of the
> > >>>>>>>>> NomCom needs to be rebalanced? Please explain why or why not.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Yes it needs to be rebalanced because as we have argued the
> > >>>>>>>> noncommercials have fewer delegates compared to the commercial
> stakeholder
> > >>>>>>>> group. In every ICANN group, the commercial and noncommercial
> stakeholder
> > >>>>>>>> groups should have equal number of delegates, irrespective of
> how many
> > >>>>>>>> internal constituencies they each have.* (SP see above, I doubt
> > >>>>>>>> this has support.  we just need to have members for each
> constituency,
> > >>>>>>>> bearing in mind that the contracted parties do not have
> consitutuencies,
> > >>>>>>>> and the At Large has regions not constituencies.)*
> > >>>>>>>> Also the advisory committees either should be voting delegates
> or
> > >>>>>>>> non-voting delegates. Perhaps because ICANN is privately led
> and the chair
> > >>>>>>>> of GAC is a liaison on the board the nonvoting nomcom (which
> they have
> > >>>>>>>> never appointed) might make sense but it is unclear why some
> advisory
> > >>>>>>>> committees are voting and some are not.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> *SP The recommendation has already been accepted to make all
> seats
> > >>>>> on the NomCom voting*
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 3. How frequently does the balance need to be measured or
> assessed?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> After rebalancing, if the review of various ICANN structures
> lead
> > >>>>>>>> to structural changes (which it rarely does)  then we need to
> > >>>>>>>> assess whether it should affect delegation on Nomcom.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> *SP I think it best, as I have said at every PC committee when
> the
> > >>>>> matter ever came up, to steer as clear of structural review as
> possible.
> > >>>>> Lets agree on 10 years for NomCom review once we get this settled,
> unless
> > >>>>> there is a sudden need to reassess.  Reviews take time, money,
> staff
> > >>>>> resources, and are exhausting our volunteers.*
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 4. How do you suggest that the NomCom’s composition be
> rebalanced?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Same number of delegates from Commercial and Noncommercial
> > >>>>>>>> stakeholders group. If CSG has 3 delegates, NCSG has to have 3
> delegates
> > >>>>>>>> too. We don't necessarily ask for increasing the number of our
> delegates
> > >>>>>>>> but we ask to reconsider the number of delegates CSG can have.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> *SP We appear to be winning the argument on constituency
> > >>>>> representation, lets settle for that.*
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 5. Who should conduct this work, and how should it be conducted?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The board should follow the third party reviewer recommendation.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> *SP I believe the how refers to reallocation of NomCom reps.*
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 6. How would your community group prioritize consideration of
> this
> > >>>>>>>>> issue
> > >>>>>>>>> within your planning efforts?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> This has been a priority issue for NCUC and NCSG since a long
> time.
> > >>>>>>>> We are directly affected.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> SP *Given that the NomCom reps are supposed to act independently
> of
> > >>>>> their organizations, I would avoid saying that we are directly
> affected.
> > >>>>> Obviously we would have had another seat years ago if everyone in
> this
> > >>>>> organization had faith in that independence, and the GAC might have
> > >>>>> surrendered the seat they have never used.....but we have to have
> a strong
> > >>>>> belief in the independence and fair HR practices of the new NomCom
> that
> > >>>>> will emerge after this review.  We are the ones who are short a
> seat, so
> > >>>>> clearly it has been on our priorities and it will remain there
> until this
> > >>>>> fundamental injustice is corrected.  To my mind, we lack
> qualitative review
> > >>>>> of the actual outputs of the NomCom, and we lack a substantive
> study of
> > >>>>> what the goals of a restructured nomcom might be.  ICANN is 25,
> and there
> > >>>>> are plenty of folks around who have been here all that time.  What
> does it
> > >>>>> mean to get new blood to join ICANN from outside the membership
> groups?
> > >>>>> What does the MS model need after 25 years?  How did the review
> committee
> > >>>>> discuss this issue?  are there studies?*
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> *Those of you who sat on these groups, and there are several of you
> > >>>>> out there who did, please weigh in.*
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Kind regards, and apologies for the failure to send the draft this
> > >>>>> weekend as planned. Life gets in the way.....
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Stephanie Perrin
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Additional background on the work to date on this topic,
> including
> > >>>>>>>>> by the NomCom Review Implementation Working Group that
> > >>>>>>>>> was set up to implement the outcomes of the Second NomCom
> Review
> > >>>>>>>>> (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence> for
> each
> > >>>>>>>>> of the
> > >>>>>>>>> letters sent to all 21 SOAC leaders). In addition, on 25 May
> 2023,
> > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> Chair of the Board’s Organizational Effectiveness Committee,
> > >>>>>>>>> Katrina
> > >>>>>>>>> Sataki, and members of ICANN org’s Reviews Support &
> > >>>>>>>>> Accountability team
> > >>>>>>>>> gave a presentation to the GNSO Council that covered the
> present
> > >>>>>>>>> structure of NomCom, a brief history of the rebalancing matter
> and
> > >>>>>>>>> forthcoming actions. As such, you may find the presentation
> > >>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>
> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/presentation/presentation-gnso-council-
> > >>>>>>>>> nomcom-rebalancing-revised-25may23-en.pdf> and
> > >>>>>>>>> the recording
> > >>>>>>>>> <
> > >>>>>>>>>
> https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/7pSQ37mSB5wGz8-msQS2PDpzhQ6VdJQISm2SYmWKwfFMWFM_Z6FdMsFiipNyIV-E.J55mm5SBjoZJS9d9?startTime=1684990882000
> > >>>>>>>>> > (from
> > >>>>>>>>> 00:14:10 - 00:31:38) helpful in discussing any planned feedback
> > >>>>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>>> your members.
> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20230627/2e4c146b/attachment.htm>

More information about the Ncsg-discuss mailing list