[NCSG-EC] Fwd: Following Up RE NomCom RIWG Recommendation: BC Supports IPC Proposed Way Forward
U Of T
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Aug 13 16:59:30 EEST 2020
I regard this as a precursor to the fight we are going to have on the GNSO review. “studying overlap” means getting rid of one of our constituencies. Do i spend any of my scarce political capital trying to get the cp house to support us?
Steph
Sent from spend iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Barbara Wanner <bwanner at uscib.org>
> Date: August 13, 2020 at 09:23:30 EDT
> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at Verisign.com>, "aheineman at godaddy.com" <aheineman at godaddy.com>, "Donna.Austin at team.neustar" <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>, "Selli, Claudia" <claudia.selli at intl.att.com>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wuknoben at gmail.com>, Dean Marks <ed4coa at gmail.com>, Stephanie E Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at GMAIL.COM>, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org>, "jennifer.taylor at bt.com" <jennifer.taylor at bt.com>
> Cc: Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen at icann.org>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>, "bc-excomm at icann.org" <bc-excomm at icann.org>, Barbara Wanner <bwanner at uscib.org>
> Subject: Following Up RE NomCom RIWG Recommendation: BC Supports IPC Proposed Way Forward
>
>
> Dear GNSO Colleagues:
>
> The BC has conferred internally, and we would like to express our support for the IPC’s proposed way forward, which was offered by Heather Forrest during our 6 August call. That is, to maintain the status quo while a holistic review of the NomCom is undertaken to examine constituency overlaps, among other issues, as called for in Recommendation 10.
>
> We feel the IPC proposal would serve as a very solid foundation for building a GNSO-wide consensus on the GNSO RIWG Recommendation, which it seems none of the GNSO constituencies supports. We further agree with the point made by Heather that resolving the matter via the Empowered Community (EC) process likely would be even more problematic as well as drawn out, in addition to opening the door to non-GNSO members influencing the outcome of a matter that concerns GNSO representation on the NomCom.
>
> BC members asked that I include my 6 August comments (below), since they provide important historical background concerning the allocation of small and large business seats to the BC on the NomCom as well as underscore the legitimate representational needs of SMEs.
>
> In view of the 21 August deadline, we thought it best to try and get the ball rolling to build a GNSO-wide consensus on this very important matter. Happy to discuss further.
>
> Best regards,
> Barbara Wanner
> BC Representative to the CSG
>
> Historical Background on BC NomCom Representation
>
> The BC’s NomCom representation was agreed in 2002, during a time when the GNSO was called the Names Council (NC). The BC held a seat on the NC then.
>
> At that time, almost all constituencies represented on the NC were dominated by big business of various sorts. For example, the Registry group was dominated by Verisign, the ISPs by major telcos, and the Registrars by a core group of large companies. The BC, however, was the only constituency that included both large companies (e.g., IBM, other global multinationals) and SME’s as direct members and via associations such as AIM and the International Chamber of Commerce.
>
> As we know, the Nominating Committee was created in response to a recognized need to legitimize the selection of the ICANN Board after a highly problematic and ultimately failed global vote. The BC’s representative on the NC therefore asserted that an elected ICANN Board via a Nom Com would lack legitimacy if it was simply decided by big business and the supply-side interests it was supposed to manage. Only the BC could make claim to the voice of 1000s of small users. Thus, without an SME voice, the legitimization objective of a NomCom selected ICANN Board would be compromised. Hence, the BC was given two seats on the NomCom, one representing large business; the other representing small business.
>
> Importance of SME Representation
> In 2020, the BC maintains that the digital transformation of the entire economy in the past 18 years has further increased the number and diversity of small start-ups which now participate in the market alongside the tech giants. The SME seat therefore continues to be critical to ensuring that legitimate selection of the ICANN Board, in our view.
>
> Business is not just a broad category, but an expanding one. We are seeing new and smaller businesses arise even as larger, legacy companies keep their footing. For that reason alone, separate seats on the Nominating Committee make sense.
>
> The maintenance of a Small Business seat for the BC is more than a historical artifact. The BC Small Business representation exists because compared to any stakeholder group involved in this process, they are the ones most different from their peers and, as such, need to have their voices represented separately.
>
> It is essential for the SME community that startups and small businesses – disproportionately Global South voices serving Global South customers, the future of our industry – have active input in all processes, especially one as important as the choices made by the NomCom. These newer voices of business simply couldn’t be captured should the small business voice be extinguished by the proposed change.
>
> Arguing over whether a group should have two seats or one seat or five seats or no seats misses the point. Deficiencies in the ability of the Nominating Committee to deliver on its mission has far less to do with artificial balance than it does with adequate subject matter expertise and reach. The reason having a small business member and a large business member on the Nominating Committee has worked so well is the aligned but widely different perspective each brings to the task.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 4:19 PM
> To: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek at verisign.com>; aheineman at godaddy.com; Donna.Austin at team.neustar; Selli, Claudia <claudia.selli at intl.att.com>; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wuknoben at gmail.com>; Dean Marks <ed4coa at gmail.com>; Barbara Wanner <bwanner at uscib.org>; Stephanie E Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>; Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>; Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org>; jennifer.taylor at bt.com
> Cc: Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen at icann.org>; Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>
> Subject: Following up: NomCom RIWG call with GNSO community leaders (22 July 2020)
>
> Dear GNSO community leaders,
>
> We write to follow up on the call that you did with Tom Barrett, Cheryl Langdon Orr and Zahid Jamil (chairs of the NomCom Review Implementation Working Group) last week. We understand that many groups are continuing to discuss the topic and may wish to communicate individually with the NomCom RIWG. As members of the Policy Team that supports your governance work, however, we thought we should ask if you would like us to convene a call for you as GNSO community group leaders.
>
> We ask also because the NomCom RIWG may be expecting a response from the GNSO community about their proposal to amend the Bylaws. In addition, it may be helpful to see if there are alternative options that you can suggest to the RIWG for their consideration.
>
> Please let us know if you would like us to schedule a call for you. We will also be grateful if you can respond to Chantelle’s query (below) about posting the materials from the call with Tom, Cheryl and Zahid to the RIWG’s public mailing list. Thank you!
>
> Best regards,
> Chantelle, Carlos & Mary
>
> From: Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen at icann.org>
> Date: Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 18:14
> To: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, "aheineman at godaddy.com" <aheineman at godaddy.com>, "Donna.Austin at team.neustar" <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>, "Selli, Claudia" <claudia.selli at intl.att.com>, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben <wuknoben at gmail.com>, Dean Marks <ed4coa at gmail.com>, Barbara Wanner <bwanner at uscib.org>, Stephanie E Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA>, Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org>, "jennifer.taylor at bt.com" <jennifer.taylor at bt.com>, Tom Barrett <tbarrett at encirca.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com>, "internet at jamilandjamil.com" <internet at jamilandjamil.com>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann at icann.org>, Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez at icann.org>, "Larisa B. Gurnick" <larisa.gurnick at icann.org>, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> Cc: Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen at icann.org>
> Subject: NomComRIWG and GNSO SG/C leadership call materials: attendance, recording, chat | Wednesday, 22 July 2020
>
> Dear all,
>
> Below are the call materials from the NomComRIWG and GNSO SG/C leadership call held on Wednesday, 22 July 2020.
>
> Question: There is a request to see if this group agrees to share the enclosed call materials with the entire NomComRIWG for their own discussions, via posting the materials below to the NomComRIWG’s public mailing list.
>
> Please let us know what your thoughts are. Thank you in advance.
>
>
> Best,
> Chantelle
>
>
> Attendance: Ashley Heineman, Barbara Wanner, Bruna Santos, Carlos Reyes, Chantelle Doerksen, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Donna Austin, Heather Forrest, Jean-Baptiste Deroulez, Jenn Taylor Hodges, Keith Drazek, Lars Hoffmann, Marie-Noemie Marques, Mary Wong, Tom Barrett, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben, Zahid Jamil
>
> Zoom Recording:
> https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/w9REDrH81VJLQKfgxB2ceJUcENvEaaa81yRNqfUFmhnVsyK_O90mtDdkHaSucEMi
>
>
> Chat:
> 14:02:37 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Good to go then
> 14:14:25 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : and the Independent Examiner was noting the lack of NPOC representation specifically
> 14:15:04 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : GNSO of course still has the largest influence as such with its 7 seats
> 14:15:34 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : next is 5 with ALAC Regional interests
> 14:15:54 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : then the rest is no more than 2
> 14:15:59 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : mostly 1
> 14:17:45 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben : What is the rationale for keeping the NCA number limited by 19?
> 14:18:45 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : it is an approved recommendation of the Independent Examiner @Wolf-Urlich
> 14:19:01 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : we mearly Implement those Board approved recommendations
> 14:19:07 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben : Thanks Cheryl
> 14:19:12 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : NP
> 14:19:29 From Heather Forrest : Further to Donna's point we do not have a mechanism for doing this selection, and this is not within scope of the GNSO Council (which is tasked with managing the policy development process)
> 14:19:32 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : That was the Ind Examiners observation
> 14:19:50 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : perfect solution @Donna
> 14:20:11 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben : @Donna +1
> 14:20:27 From Mary Wong : @Heather, the distinction with the Council’s remit is why the request was addressed to the SG & C chairs, with Keith (as GNSO Chair) cc’d for information.
> 14:20:45 From Heather Forrest : Very much appreciated, Mary
> 14:28:19 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : This was not a negotiation we want your feedback however specifically on the proposed bylaw language
> 14:28:45 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : I was assuring you we have explored as many possabilities as we can
> 14:28:55 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : this leaves the GNSO seat # as is
> 14:29:03 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : the most palatable we felt
> 14:29:20 From Heather Forrest : Is there a documented concern from GNSO (not from an outside consultant) that the GNSO wants control? Or that the GNSO SG/Cs themselves feel the need for change?
> 14:30:38 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : I believe the Ind Examiners report was acting based specifically on concerns or complaints from part(s) of the GNSO
> 14:31:05 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : that documentation can perhaps be sorced from MSSI
> 14:31:25 From Heather Forrest : @Cheryl - sorry to push, but bylaws amendment means we need to be more than just "I believe" - such a major decision requires evidence-based decision making
> 14:31:41 From Heather Forrest : I think we need to chase the documentation down
> 14:32:19 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : ALSO note there will be other bylaw changes required as a result of our required Implementation of these 27 Recs, so *IF* the Rec 10 results in a Bylaws change it can go woth that set
> 14:32:23 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : with
> 14:33:12 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Correct @Kieth
> 14:34:27 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : It could rotate all its seats or any combination therein year by year if you so wish
> 14:34:52 From Mary Wong : @Heather, Policy staff will consult with our MSSI colleagues regarding the documentation you requested.
> 14:35:05 From Barbara Wanner : Thanks Keith -- great point about political sensitivities in light of all that we must address now from a policy standpoint.
> 14:35:10 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : weunderstand the friction point issue but US implementing a change from the outside may have an effect as well (I strongly suspect)
> 14:35:31 From Jean-Baptiste Deroulez : As a follow-up to Cheryl’s comment above, here is the link to the independent examiner final report on rec. 10: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.pdf , see p25-26.
> 14:35:45 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Thanks @JPD
> 14:36:20 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : JBD
> 14:37:11 From Heather Forrest : Thanks very much, Jean-Baptiste. Is there "a comprehensive
> assessment of representation within the ICANN community, including a full understanding of the
> history and possible future of representation within the SOs/ACs" as per that recommendation 10 p 25?
> 14:37:22 From Heather Forrest : Great question, Donna, thank you
> 14:40:49 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : That COuld occur at a future holistic ICANN wide review point I suspect @Heather
> 14:41:07 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : we are trapped between hstory and change
> 14:42:19 From Heather Forrest : My fault, Tom, for not being more specific - sorry
> 14:43:13 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : and some of their earlier presentations might also give background as well, again MSSI have the links to hand I suspect
> 14:43:54 From Heather Forrest : +1 Donna - likewise - very much appreciate the additional information
> 14:43:59 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Thanks everyone we really appreciate al your time as well.
> 14:44:24 From Barbara Wanner : Appreciate the time you gave us to think this through further!
> 14:44:29 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : We understand @Donna
> 14:44:55 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : We thought not @Donna
> 14:46:07 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Bye for now
> 14:46:07 From Barbara Wanner : @ Heather agree and thank you!
> 14:46:09 From Donna Austin, Neustar : Thanks all
> 14:46:09 From Ashley Heineman : thanks.
> 14:46:10 From Heather Forrest : bye all, thank you
> 14:46:14 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben : thanks and bye
> 14:46:19 From Jean-Baptiste Deroulez : Work of the NomComRIWG can be followed here: https://community.icann.org/x/aBpIBg. thank you.
> 14:46:21 From Bruna Santos : thanks and byw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20200813/41cda8a5/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-EC
mailing list