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

Wed Jun 28 00:49:23 EEST 2023

Greetings from Sénégal.
+1 @Dorothy Gordon <dgdorothydg at gmail.com>
Totally agree with these short by précise responses to the questions.

Anyway according to the point 3, I have a comment to be clarified.
3. How frequently does the balance need to be measured or assessed?
My humble proposal of response may be as follwed :
The balanced need to be measured and/or assessed in case any creation of a
new constituency, or a new.stakeholder group or any new SO/AC within this
ICANN MSM evolving ecosystem.

My 2 cents.
Warm regards
Olévié

Le mar. 27 juin 2023, 21:17, dorothy g <dgdorothydg at gmail.com> a écrit :

> 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/20230628/aa7671cb/attachment.htm>