[PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

On Nov 19, 2014, at 9:28 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

[SNIP]

> I am not, however, arguing that the GNSO should have more seats, at least not at this point as I am not sure what I would gain.
> 
> I do agree that the nomcom issues is a good one, but will the right people be there? I.e it is a Board issue, will the relavant Board people, e.g. George, be there?  Otherwise, what is our purpose in the discussion?

The feeling I got when this came up in a council discussion was that there was more vocal support for the idea from the contracted parties than our counterpart in the NCPH. So IF we think it is worth pursuing, having a chat with the CSG to see if we can bring them on board might not be such a bad idea - before we take this to the board via the GNSO. I, for one, would like to see the GNSO have more seats considering the number of gTLD related policies the board deals with such as GNSO PDPs (including the upcoming EWG PDP), the board?s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) as well as the constant to and fro from the GAC on gTLD policies.

But that?s just me. :)

Thanks.

Amr