[NCSG-PC] Nomcom comments

[Benjamin Akinmoyeje]

Dear Julf,
I am onboard with this response.

Thank you,
Benjamin

On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 8:19 PM Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Hi Julf,
> It's OK for me
>
>  Regards
>
> *JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc.*
> Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia
> NPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO
> M.Sc. Information Technology
>
> Registered Linux User No.*533108.*
> http://www.jmanurojas.com
>
>
> *Cel. +57 301 743 56 00Instagram: jmanurojas*
>
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.1
> GIT d- s: a+ C+++ UL P+ L+++ !E !W+++ !N !o K+++ w-- !O M- V PS+ PE-- Y+
> PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b+ DI D G e+++(+++)>+++ h+ r++ y+
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> El martes, 11 de junio de 2024, 04:51:50 p. m. GMT+2, Johan Helsingius <
> julf at julf.com> escribió:
>
>
> Benjamnin and Juan,
>
> Are you OK with the response being a joint NCSG/NCUC/NPOC one?
>
>     Julf
>
>
> On 11/06/2024 15:50, Johan Helsingius via NCSG-PC 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
> >
> >
> > 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
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20240611/ef5b0dbc/attachment.htm>