[NCSG-PC] Nomcom comments

[Juan Manuel Rojas]

Hi Julf, 
It's OK for me
 Regards

JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc.
Director - MINKA DIGITAL ColombiaNPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO
M.Sc. Information Technology

Registered Linux User No.533108.
http://www.jmanurojas.com 

Cel. +57 301 743 56 00
Instagram: 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/20240611/12553246/attachment.htm>