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

dorothy g dgdorothydg at GMAIL.COM
Tue Jun 27 16:14:17 EEST 2023 

Dear Ben,   In my view all the questions have been answered in a post
either drafted or forwarded by  Remy. I believe this is an issue that
concerns both NCUC and NPOC and so an NCSG response is appropriate. Why
should we have a position that differs when our fundamental GOAL is to
achieve a balance. We can alternate if the number is odd or field a mixed
list for the final seat. Perhaps if you could explain why you believe NCUC
should have a specific position? I summarize below what I have understood
from the discussion.

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?
FUNDAMENTALLY WE NEED NON-COMMERCIAL INTERESTS TO BE EQUALLY REPRESENTED SO
THE NUMBERS SHOULD BALANCE.

2. Do you support the view that the current composition of the NomCom needs
to be rebalanced? Please explain why or why not.
YES BECAUSE THE NUMBERS ARE NOT BALANCED BETWEEN NON-COMMERCIAL AND
COMMERCIAL INTERESTS

3. How frequently does the balance need to be measured or assessed?
IT IS PRETTY EASY TO CALCULATE SO IT DOES NOT REQUIRE FREQUENT ASSESSMENT.
IT IS  EASILY DETERMINED

4. How do you suggest that the NomCom’s composition be rebalanced?
BALANCE. BETWEEN NUMBERS OF NON-COMMERCIAL AND COMMERCIAL REPRESENTATION ON
NON-COM

5. Who should conduct this work, and how should it be conducted?
WITHIN THE ACCEPTED ICANN NORMS.

6. How would your community group prioritize consideration of this issue
within your planning efforts?
BY ENSURING WE HAVE THE RIGHT PERSONS FOR OUR NOM COM POSITIONS, WE WILL
ALSO MONITOR/CONDUCT DUE DILIGENCE ON THE EVENTUAL SLATE OF CANDIDATES PUT
FORWARD BY THE NOMCOM,

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 at 19:24, Benjamin Akinmoyeje <benakin at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>
>

-- 

stay well, kind regards
Dorothy Gordon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20230627/b8093dbe/attachment.htm>

More information about the Ncsg-discuss mailing list