Suggested amendments to ICANN's bylaws and NomCom

[Judith Hellerstein]

Hi All,
I am coming late to this discussion but it was not just the meetings that were missed during the NomCom Review but also the important meetings afterwards that led to the Board and others pulling recommendation 10 from the Public Comment.  Apparently, according to Chair Cheryl Langdon Orr whom I spoke to at length to gain a better understanding of what transpired. The recommendation that the NomCom 2 Review team had arrived at was for the GNSO to decide how its 7 slots would be distributed. We could have worked with that.  However, I was told by CLO that the GNSO protested immensely about that and as a result the recommendation was pulled from the Public Comment.  It seems that had NCSG been perhaps more vociferous on this issue we might not have gotten this recommendation pulled and it would have gone through in the Public Comment as we first saw when they inadvertently left it in. We, NCSG could have worked with that and gotten 2 of those seven slots. Also we could have gotten all slots given to the NCSG as that would be the fairest way.  Additionally during the transition year the GNSO would have been given 3 or 4 2year terms and 3 or 4 1 year terms (I forget what the rules were and I am on my iPad so harder to look at it) and we could have used those slots as bargaining chips to get the CPH on our side to convince the CSG to accept 3 instead of 4 slots. As I was told, in the past we had no bargaining chips to convince CPH to come on our side and now we did. However, now even those are lost to us.

Anyway, this is all water under the bridge and no way to go backwards in time.  It is just a learning lesson for all

Best,
Judith 

Sent from my iPad 
judith at jhellerstein.com 
Skype ID:JudithHellerstein

> On May 29, 2023, at 11:29 AM, Johan Helsingius <julf at julf.com> wrote:
> 
> Seems we missed more than one meeting. How many meetings were there in
> total, and how many did we miss?
> 
>    Julf
> 
>> On 29/05/2023 16:17, Raoul Plommer wrote:
>> I did voice my concerns when the review team was asking for input on recommendation 10, we submitted our reasoning for getting another seat and yeah, might've missed that one crucial meeting with GNSO but I certainly thought our councillors knew our stance too and I think it would be quite weird if they didn't echo out concerns we've been very vocal about for the last .. ten years?
>> The biggest reason for recommendation 10 was the imbalance between NCSG and CSG and everyone knows our stance very well. Using a pretext of not being in one particular meeting over the course of five years of the RIWG and thus ignoring our concerns over the last ten years is pathetic in my opinion.
>> -Raoul
>> On Mon, 29 May 2023, 04:37 Johan Helsingius, <julf at julf.com <mailto:julf at julf.com>> wrote:
>>    Hi Raoul,
>>    One pushback I keep hearing is "You had your representatives in the
>>    review and review implementation teams. You didn't speak up then."
>>             Julf
>>    On 24/04/2023 21:19, Raoul Plommer wrote:
>>     > Hi everyone,
>>     >
>>     > It looks like the proposed amendment to ICANN's bylaws is going
>>    to take
>>     > out the specific composition of the seven NomCom delegates and
>>    shift the
>>     > decision on the number of representatives to the GNSO.
>>     >
>>     >
>>    https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-bylaws-amendments-10apr23-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-bylaws-amendments-10apr23-en.pdf> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-bylaws-amendments-10apr23-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-bylaws-amendments-10apr23-en.pdf>> see pg. 4.
>>     >
>>     > The public comment is here:
>>     >
>>    https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/bylaws-amendments-and-documents-to-implement-the-nomcom2-review-17-04-2023 <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/bylaws-amendments-and-documents-to-implement-the-nomcom2-review-17-04-2023> <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/bylaws-amendments-and-documents-to-implement-the-nomcom2-review-17-04-2023 <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/bylaws-amendments-and-documents-to-implement-the-nomcom2-review-17-04-2023>>
>>     >
>>     > It might be a good time to approach the CPH once again about this
>>    and
>>     > agree to lessen the CSG's representation in the NCSG's favor? :-)
>>     >
>>     > The public comment period closes on the 29th of May.
>>     >
>>     > -Raoul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20230529/7afa5d2c/attachment.htm>