[NCSG-PC] Nomcom comments

[Johan Helsingius]

Now anyone can comment. Not sure we need to emphasize the representation
point - we have made a lot of noise about it already, but we want to
have it formally noted.

	Julf


On 11/06/2024 16:00, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
> Thanks for this, Julf.
> 
> I asked to add comments to the reply but the document is closed for 
> comments. Id maybe just add in an even clearer way that we are not 
> onboard with this suggestion especially in light of the fact that 
> despite the fact we have 2 constituencies within our SG, we only have 
> one slot in the Nomcom as opposed to other parts of the GNSO having two 
> slots.
> 
> Best,
> B
> 
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 3:50 PM Johan Helsingius via NCSG-PC 
> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
> 
>     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 <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
> 
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> */Bruna Martins dos Santos
> /*
> 
> Global Campaigns Manager | Digital Action <http://digitalaction.co>
> 
> German Chancellor Fellow 21' (Bundeskanzler-Stipendiatin) | Alexander 
> von Humboldt Foundation <https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/>
> 
> Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
> Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus <https://igcaucus.org/>
> 
> Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype: 
> bruna.martinsantos
> Email: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com <mailto:bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>