[NCSG-PC] Nomcom comments

[Johan Helsingius]

Here is my suggested response to Greg's question about the NomCom
changes.

Google doc at: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z2EIBHxO68xOklCFqw44Df8f225QCR94eDobzlXZ9CI/edit?usp=sharing


The question is "Do you believe there would be any objections from your
groups, and potentially delegates that you have already identified, to
proceeding with a simple path forward in which we randomly select three
of seven GNSO delegates to serve one-year terms?"

We do find that the recommendations and internally inconsistent and
should not have been approved. On one hand the recommendations
call for staggered terms in order to provide continuity and to
avoid an "all new faces" situation, but then on the other hand
force all representatives to be new appointees (with reappointing
existing representatives specifically not allowed) at the beginning
of the new term structure.

We also note that the random selection of lengths of initial
terms might be appropriate for an AC like ALAC as they don't
have multiple constituencies with diverging interests and
uneven representation. We don't think it is appropriate
for the GNSO.

In addition to the issue about initial terms, we also want
to once again note another reason the recommendations should
not have been approved. In the draft recommendations there
was almost to the end a recommendation for a NomCom rebalancing.
It is our understanding that that recommendation was removed
at the last moment, based on a vote taken at one single meeting
where none of our constituencies were represented. We don't
feel that is how consensus policy should be decided.

On behalf of the NCSG, NCUC and NPOC,

	Julf Helsingius, NCSG Chair