I really hope our reps can provide us some understanding of the
rationale behind the recommendations.

Another thing they might be able to shed some light on is how in
the implementation work they often talk about NCSG instead of
NCUC - is the thinking that they see the NCUC rep as a more
general NCSG rep?

	Julf


On 04/06/2024 08:52, Johan Helsingius wrote:
> The NomCom2 Review produced 27 recommendations. Unfortunately the bylaws
> amendments made no change to the number and nature of delegates from the
> GNSO (i.e., 1 each from the RySG, RrSG, ISPCP,  IPC, NCSG/NCUC, and 2
> from the BC), so we will still be severely under-represented in the
> NomCom. The length of terms were extended to two years for all groups
> (some had 1-year terms previously), and there is a limit of at most
> two consecutive terms.
> 
> Strangely the recommendations contain a major inconsistency in, on
> one hand, wanting to avoid an "all newbies" situation and thus
> insisting on staggered terms (so only half of nomcom would be replaced
> every year) but then stating that in introducing the new terms,
> all reps have to be newly appointed, starting their term at the
> 2024 AGM (and existing reps can't be reappointed). To deal with
> the dilemma, GNSO is asked to decide (by toss of coin) which
> reps get a special 1-year term instead of the normal 2-year one.
> 
> I would love to hear from our reps on the team what the rationale
> for this is, and that is why I am copying our representatives
> on the NomCom Review Implementation Working Group, Ines Hfaiedh,
> Raoul Plommer and Remmy Nweke as well as our current NomCom
> representative Pascal Bekono, hoping they can shed some light
> on the recommendation, as well as help explain why the representation
> issue wasn't addressed.
> 
> 	Julf