One possible compromise would be having two seats for CPS, two for
NCSG (NCUC and NPOC one each) and one for NCPH as a whole. That'd mean
we'd have fun negotiating about that fifth seat with CSG every time...
or maybe we could just agree with them on strict alternation.
That would give both CSG and NCSG two and a half seats, as it were.
Tapani
On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 09:24:21AM +0300, Raoul Plommer ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
>
> The way I see it, is either adding one seat for NomCom and having two seats
> per SG or reducing three GNSO seats (all from the CSG) and having one each.
> If NomCom is too big as it is, then it would make more sense to reduce the
> amount of GNSO seats. The only compromise I could see happening is taking 2
> off CSG and adding one to NCSG, reducing the total number of GNSO seats to
> six.
>
> The point is, if we're supposed to pretend to be a remotely functional
> multistakeholder model, the commercial group should be just as big as its
> noncommercial counterpart.
>
> -Raoul
>
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 at 07:31, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Judith
> >
> > Farzaneh
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:32 PM Judith Hellerstein <
> > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> HI Farzi,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your comments and views. I have just finished off two years
> >> on NomCom, and so I take issue with your statement that NomCom is not doing
> >> well. Please explain what you mean by that.
> >>
> >
> > As we say in Farsi let me put the shyness aside and ask you, who are you
> > on NCSG and where have you been. I do not remember you being appointed by
> > us. So you were representing ALAC. We are not a family. Not even a
> > dysfunctional one. ALAC does not understand our GNSO complexities and that
> > has always been a problem. But I will tell you what I mean by NomCom not
> > doing well for the past 5-6 years.
> >
> >> I am not privy to explain what transpired this year, but we have worked
> >> very hard to get independent thinkers and outsiders onto the boards and
> >> leadership positions. This year we had a much larger pool thanks to the
> >> addition of a recruitment firm helping to outreach to candidates for the
> >> GNSO, CCNSO, and ALAC leadership position. The delegates work hard to get
> >> independent and outside thinkers to fill the leadership positions but we
> >> work with the priorities that each constituency has given to Nomcom. If
> >> these priorities for the GNSO slots are not accurate than they should be
> >> revised
> >>
> > Oh good. Because we see the appointment of former intellectual property
> > constituencies members. And frankly since NCAs prolly better not be from
> > NCSG either I am glad to hear that you have a more diverse pool.
> > a few years ago nomcom went through a really strange operational procedure
> > change. led by our unsurprisingly CSG (BC and IPC) colleagues to make it
> > less transparent all under the disguise of confidentiality. At some point
> > NomCom appointed an NCA who was an employee of ITU at the time! NomCom
> > appointed people with conflict of interest to various groups, see the
> > ccnso letter here
> > <https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sataki-to-nomcomm-29sep17-en.pdf>.
> > When you were serving, maybe it got better. But we still observed the
> > musical chair. People from GAC later on were appointed to various positions
> > that were supposed to be non-governmental, noncommercial.
> >
> >> The public comments on the NomCom2 Review report we were just asked to
> >> comment on the items in the report that were up for validation.
> >> Unfortunately, the issue of NomCom REbalancing was withdrawn from the
> >> report, and so we could not comment on it. This is why there were two
> >> processes. The letter and the response to the public comments. I just
> >> worked on the response to the public comments and worked closely with the
> >> NCUC rep Peter on these comments.
> >>
> > Good. So you are, I believe an NCSG member now working to advance our
> > interest. Allow me to take this moment and tell you that while we are
> > collegial with ALAC we don't agree on everything.
> >
> >>
> >> Stefanie is correct in her analysis and her review. There does not seem
> >> to be an appetite or interest to expand the NomCom beyond the current
> >> numbers. What there was interest in is having each constituency be
> >> responsible for each of their delegates.
> >>
> > Frankly, I don't give a damn about appetite whatsoever, we are not asking
> > for expansion. If the number of members reduced, but we are given equal
> > delegation I think we would be happy. If it's reducing the number of
> > advisory committee members to make it smaller, so be it! less travel, less
> > resources and same results!
> >
> >> Also from what I have heard while at ICANN 77 is that the GAC is
> >> rethinking their approach and may indeed begin to use its seat in the
> >> coming years. Happy to be of help and share my experience on NomCom and I
> >> am sure Peter will share his experience.
> >>
> > Oh ok. so insisting on having advisory committees be a voting member
> > backfired. Good good. But advisory committees should also appoint an equal
> > number of members. One each?
> >
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Judith
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________________
> >> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO
> >> Hellerstein & Associates
> >> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008
> >> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein
> >> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517
> >> E-mail: [log in to unmask] Website: www.jhellerstein.com
> >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/
> >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/27/23 12:21 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> >>
> >> I made some changes:
> >>
> >> https://docs.google.com/file/d/1garMNp-pIeJ-dp2NAZjLIdNTuvDQmfoB/edit?usp=docslist_api&filetype=msword
> >>
> >> We need to ask for equal number of delegates and get it done with. NomCom
> >> is not doing well anyway and I am not sure it’s because of the composition.
> >> Anyway. Comments attached. Please discuss these issues on the general
> >> member mailing list so that we know what is going on.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 9:06 PM Remmy Nweke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi
> >>> I tend to support this position, but then, we needed to have an internal
> >>> mechanism within the NCSG to manage the outcome, assuming our request is
> >>> yet to be accepted and how to make due in terms of rotating our slots to
> >>> ensure even representation within the NCSG family, especially as it may
> >>> affect NPOC that largely has been missing in representation without much
> >>> home grown support within the NCSG.
> >>>
> >>> Internal democracy/MoU will prepare our minds in the journey ahead so as
> >>> to rebalance even within, bearing in mind that NomCom rebalancing is not
> >>> only about us (NCSG) but depends on the total acceptable number for the
> >>> larger NomCom to work with as may be approved.
> >>>
> >>> At the same time lets maintain equal footing for equal quota between
> >>> non-commercial and commercial as annunciated.
> >>>
> >>> ___________________
> >>> REMMY NWEKE, *mNUJ, mNGE, mGOCOP*
> >>> Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor,
> >>> *ITREALMS Media* group [*Multiple-award winning medium*]
> >>> (ITREALMS <http://www.itrealms.com.ng/>, DigitalSENSE Business Magazine
> >>> <http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; NaijaAgroNet
> >>> <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng/>)
> >>> No. 36 Afariogun Street, Oshodi-Lagos
> >>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/No.+36+Afariogun+Street,+Oshodi-Lagos?entry=gmail&source=g>
> >>> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, T: @ITRealms
> >>> <http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms>
> >>> @DigitalSENSEng
> >>> 2023 *Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D*, Thursday June 8
> >>> <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/>
> >>> 2023 *ITREALMS* e-Waste Dialogue, Thursday December 7
> >>> <https://www.itrealms.com.ng/>
> >>> @Welcome Center Hotels, Int'l Airport Road, Lagos-Nigeria
> >>> <http://welcomecentrehotels.com/>
> >>> Former Vice President, African Civil Society on Information Society
> >>> (ACSIS)
> >>> ______________________________________________________________
> >>> *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and
> >>> attachments
> >>> are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended
> >>> only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept
> >>> legal
> >>> responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the
> >>> intended
> >>> recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and
> >>> do
> >>> not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make
> >>> any copies. Violators may face court persecution.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 12:30 AM farzaneh badii <
> >>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I absolutely disagree to make this a constituency matter. It is the
> >>>> card that they played for so long to argue that we didnt have as many
> >>>> constituency. As stakeholder group, if they have 3 reps we should have 3
> >>>> reps. If we have one as stakeholder group they should have one. If you
> >>>> wanna make them smaller stop having 5 ALAC/at large delegates. No reason
> >>>> for that they are an advisory committee like everyone else.
> >>>>
> >>>> I keep hearing that we should compromise on this and that and that we
> >>>> have better things to do. What are these better things? We are here to
> >>>> advance our interest. By sitting on policy positions we cannot get
> >>>> anywhere.
> >>>>
> >>>> Stephanie, if you have written something great. If not we just turn my
> >>>> response with correction to a statement and send it off. We can’t wait
> >>>> forever.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 6:53 PM Stephanie E Perrin <
> >>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The fault is not Caleb's it is mine. I have been working on that
> >>>>> draft. Judith Hellerstein was kind enough to draft the response to the
> >>>>> call for comments, and I had intended to circulate the draft for comments
> >>>>> this past weekend. Unfortunately a health emergency in my family has
> >>>>> dragged me away. There was quite a bit of discussion around the meeting in
> >>>>> Washington on this topic, and it also had come up at Council. Council is
> >>>>> just now preparing its draft response to the Board. We have till the 30th
> >>>>> and Julf is standing by to send the final draft, so please lets not panic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is strong opposition to growing the Nomcom, as it grows it
> >>>>> becomes more unwieldy, and they are already working very hard. So I would
> >>>>> submit that asking for three delegates, just like the commercial group, is
> >>>>> a non-starter. However, the battle to get a seat for NPOC, at least at the
> >>>>> GNSO level, appears to be turning in our favour. Please see my comments re
> >>>>> the questions below, and expect to see a tidied up draft comment shortly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2023-06-26 5:50 p.m., Raoul Plommer wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Caleb,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You received that very email on 27th of April, and since you've been
> >>>>> preparing the draft since, perhaps you could finally share your work with
> >>>>> us so we could make that statement together as a stakeholder group?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Raoul
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 21:46, farzaneh badii <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Where are NCSG's joint recommendations? NCUC can reinforce the
> >>>>>> message.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Farzaneh
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 2:44 PM Caleb Olumuyiwa Ogundele <
> >>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I believe NCUC can consolidate the response with the NCSG's joint
> >>>>>>> recommendations.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This will allow us to go out on a united front as non-commercial.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 1:40 PM farzaneh badii <
> >>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Benjamin,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not only do we need to respond, we should reach out to our friends
> >>>>>>>> and colleagues and tell them what the problem is. See the
> >>>>>>>> responses below:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 1:57 PM Benjamin Akinmoyeje <
> >>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dear NCUC members,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Good day and I hope your week is going well.
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for participating in the NCUC Readout session. As
> >>>>>>>>> discussed in the meeting today, please share your response to these
> >>>>>>>>> questions to gather our community views.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ICANN Board Chair Tripti Sinha is requesting feedback from your
> >>>>>>>>> respective community groups on the question of rebalancing the
> >>>>>>>>> Nominating Committee (NomCom) by **30 June 2023**. As noted in
> >>>>>>>>> the letter, the ICANN Board wishes to engage with the community
> >>>>>>>>> to understand the community’s views on this topic. The Board is
> >>>>>>>>> specifically seeking input on the following questions:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1. What does it mean to have a balanced NomCom at a point in
> >>>>>>>>> time? For example, what criteria would you apply to measure or assess
> >>>>>>>>> whether the
> >>>>>>>>> NomCom is balanced? And further, how can one test whether or not
> >>>>>>>>> the NomCom is balanced?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A balanced NomCom means that the noncommercial and commercial
> >>>>>>>> stakeholder groups as predicted have the same number of delegates. For
> >>>>>>>> example, if the Commercial Group has three delegates, the noncommercial
> >>>>>>>> group should have three delegates. This is the least that can be done when
> >>>>>>>> rebalancing.It should be remodeled based on GNSO council composition.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2. Do you support the view that the current composition of the
> >>>>>>>>> NomCom needs to be rebalanced? Please explain why or why not.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes it needs to be rebalanced because as we have argued the
> >>>>>>>> noncommercials have fewer delegates compared to the commercial stakeholder
> >>>>>>>> group. In every ICANN group, the commercial and noncommercial stakeholder
> >>>>>>>> groups should have equal number of delegates, irrespective of how many
> >>>>>>>> internal constituencies they each have.* (SP see above, I doubt
> >>>>>>>> this has support. we just need to have members for each constituency,
> >>>>>>>> bearing in mind that the contracted parties do not have consitutuencies,
> >>>>>>>> and the At Large has regions not constituencies.)*
> >>>>>>>> Also the advisory committees either should be voting delegates or
> >>>>>>>> non-voting delegates. Perhaps because ICANN is privately led and the chair
> >>>>>>>> of GAC is a liaison on the board the nonvoting nomcom (which they have
> >>>>>>>> never appointed) might make sense but it is unclear why some advisory
> >>>>>>>> committees are voting and some are not.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> *SP The recommendation has already been accepted to make all seats
> >>>>> on the NomCom voting*
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 3. How frequently does the balance need to be measured or assessed?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> After rebalancing, if the review of various ICANN structures lead
> >>>>>>>> to structural changes (which it rarely does) then we need to
> >>>>>>>> assess whether it should affect delegation on Nomcom.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> *SP I think it best, as I have said at every PC committee when the
> >>>>> matter ever came up, to steer as clear of structural review as possible.
> >>>>> Lets agree on 10 years for NomCom review once we get this settled, unless
> >>>>> there is a sudden need to reassess. Reviews take time, money, staff
> >>>>> resources, and are exhausting our volunteers.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 4. How do you suggest that the NomCom’s composition be rebalanced?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Same number of delegates from Commercial and Noncommercial
> >>>>>>>> stakeholders group. If CSG has 3 delegates, NCSG has to have 3 delegates
> >>>>>>>> too. We don't necessarily ask for increasing the number of our delegates
> >>>>>>>> but we ask to reconsider the number of delegates CSG can have.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> *SP We appear to be winning the argument on constituency
> >>>>> representation, lets settle for that.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 5. Who should conduct this work, and how should it be conducted?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The board should follow the third party reviewer recommendation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> *SP I believe the how refers to reallocation of NomCom reps.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 6. How would your community group prioritize consideration of this
> >>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>> within your planning efforts?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This has been a priority issue for NCUC and NCSG since a long time.
> >>>>>>>> We are directly affected.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> SP *Given that the NomCom reps are supposed to act independently of
> >>>>> their organizations, I would avoid saying that we are directly affected.
> >>>>> Obviously we would have had another seat years ago if everyone in this
> >>>>> organization had faith in that independence, and the GAC might have
> >>>>> surrendered the seat they have never used.....but we have to have a strong
> >>>>> belief in the independence and fair HR practices of the new NomCom that
> >>>>> will emerge after this review. We are the ones who are short a seat, so
> >>>>> clearly it has been on our priorities and it will remain there until this
> >>>>> fundamental injustice is corrected. To my mind, we lack qualitative review
> >>>>> of the actual outputs of the NomCom, and we lack a substantive study of
> >>>>> what the goals of a restructured nomcom might be. ICANN is 25, and there
> >>>>> are plenty of folks around who have been here all that time. What does it
> >>>>> mean to get new blood to join ICANN from outside the membership groups?
> >>>>> What does the MS model need after 25 years? How did the review committee
> >>>>> discuss this issue? are there studies?*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *Those of you who sat on these groups, and there are several of you
> >>>>> out there who did, please weigh in.*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kind regards, and apologies for the failure to send the draft this
> >>>>> weekend as planned. Life gets in the way.....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stephanie Perrin
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Additional background on the work to date on this topic, including
> >>>>>>>>> by the NomCom Review Implementation Working Group that
> >>>>>>>>> was set up to implement the outcomes of the Second NomCom Review
> >>>>>>>>> (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence> for each
> >>>>>>>>> of the
> >>>>>>>>> letters sent to all 21 SOAC leaders). In addition, on 25 May 2023,
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> Chair of the Board’s Organizational Effectiveness Committee,
> >>>>>>>>> Katrina
> >>>>>>>>> Sataki, and members of ICANN org’s Reviews Support &
> >>>>>>>>> Accountability team
> >>>>>>>>> gave a presentation to the GNSO Council that covered the present
> >>>>>>>>> structure of NomCom, a brief history of the rebalancing matter and
> >>>>>>>>> forthcoming actions. As such, you may find the presentation
> >>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/presentation/presentation-gnso-council-
> >>>>>>>>> nomcom-rebalancing-revised-25may23-en.pdf> and
> >>>>>>>>> the recording
> >>>>>>>>> <
> >>>>>>>>> https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/7pSQ37mSB5wGz8-msQS2PDpzhQ6VdJQISm2SYmWKwfFMWFM_Z6FdMsFiipNyIV-E.J55mm5SBjoZJS9d9?startTime=1684990882000
> >>>>>>>>> > (from
> >>>>>>>>> 00:14:10 - 00:31:38) helpful in discussing any planned feedback
> >>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>> your members.
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
|
