[NCUC-DISCUSS] NomCom changes

[Wisdom Donkor]

Caleb and Judith, thank you both for making it clear to us. It's evident
now, but should we wait for the ICANN CEO and board to respond before
acting? I think that before we hear back from the ICANN CEO and the Board, we
should, in my opinion, take modest efforts to make our intentions clear.
I do agree with Remmy's points as well.

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024, 7:11 pm Judith Hellerstein, <judith at jhellerstein.com>
wrote:

> Hi Julf,
> Caleb was right. These actions occurred during the NomCom Review
> Committee.  there were many protests by other groups and as NCSG or NPOC
> did not have a rep on this committee or if they did the rep was not active
> so when these decisions were made to take out the rebalancing from the
> recommendations there was no one there to oppose it and change people’s
> minds. I had asked this question when the public comment first came out and
> it had the rebalancing issues still there by mistake and this is the
> answers and information I was given by the people on the committee.
>
> As such Rebalancing was removed from the recommendations and was taken out
> of the public comment.  As much issues were made after the fact, it was
> decided that advice would be sought from each of the SOs and ACs and other
> groups on how best to do the rebalancing.  That advice was given but not
> sure whatever happened to it.
>
> We will just have to wait for an answer from theCEO and Board.
>
> Best,
> Judith
> Sent from my iPad
> judith at jhellerstein.com
> Skype ID:JudithHellerstein
>
> On Jun 5, 2024, at 2:46 PM, Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele <
> muyiwacaleb at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Julf,
>
> The board did not remove any recommendations. A vote was put forward in
> the NomCom RIWG from what I understand and we did not have an NCSG rep on
> the ground during that meeting the recommendation votes were maded to push
> for a consensus to retain recommendation 10l
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 1:30 PM Johan Helsingius via Ncuc-discuss <
> ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the useful information, Remmy,
>>
>> > The final recommendations were made including our desire to increase
>> and
>> > re-balance the slots and were submitted to the ICANN board and it did
>> > not sail through as expected. (Raoul Plommer can also add a voice here)
>>
>> I am, like Pedro, a bit confused about this - did the team actually
>> recommend re-balancing, but the board removed it, or did the team
>> decide to remove the recommendation from the final version that
>> went to the board?
>>
>> > On the call for term duration, I would advise that current appointees
>> > have 1 additional year, since that would mean they are not returning
>> and
>> > must have availed some ‘knowledge transfer’ on the new or incoming
>> > appointees before their final exit thereafter.
>>
>> That would be the sensible thing to do, yes, but that doesn't seem
>> to be what the recommendation says.
>>
>>         Julf
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>
>
> --
> *Caleb Ogundele*
> Email: muyiwacaleb at gmail.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20240605/af984cff/attachment.htm>