Kathy Kleiman asked: “p.s. how does 5 GNSO representatives but only 3 
votes mean? ...(currently I think it is one rep, one vote).”

The practice of having delegation memberships larger than delegation 
voting strength can be a good one. Having membership larger than 
delegation votes has two strengths. First, generates a stronger dialogue 
within delegations and with their constituencies, since it requires some 
degree of consensus within the delegation, even if here there is to be a 
split vote. That can give the delegation more accountability to its 
constituencies and give constituencies more engagement in the 
deliberations leading up to votes. Second, each delegation having a 
slightly larger membership on the NomCom can deepen that delegation's 
engagement in the reasoned discussion leading up to NomCom votes.

The allocation of votes across delegations (ASO: 3v/5mem; ccNSO: 
3v/5mem; gNSO: 3v/4mem; Technical: 2v/3mem; GAC 1v/1-3mem) reflects the 
proposed distribution of voting power. That may or may not be an issue 
in its own right from a NCSG and stakeholder perspective.

This also touches on two issues that will continue to grow as the 
Internet matures. First, what is the impact of a maturing Internet 
ecosystem on where stakeholders go (ICANN, elsewhere?) to represent 
their interests. This will impact on the scope of ICANN’s remit. Second, 
within ICANN’s internal procedures and practices, what multistakeholder 
principles and practices are included and which are not.

Sam L.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [mailto:ncuc-discuss-
> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of 
> Kathy Kleiman
> > Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 10:51 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Delegate to the 2015 NomCom
> >
> > All,
> > My gut sense says that we should study this proposal closely. It 
> gives an awful
> > lot of weight and votes to Supporting Organizations that do not, 
> themselves,
> > allow ICANN a role in their governance (ASO, ccNSO), but would now 
> be having
> > a much greater weight in appointing representatives to our 
> governance (namely
> > the Board and its work with GNSO issues). The implications could be 
> astounding.
> >
> > I recommend that we talk more. I would value the review and input of 
> those
> > who served on the Nominating Committee, those who have a strong 
> knowledge
> > of the other supporting organizations, and everyone.
> >
> > Like the proposal to change the GAC's power, this is one with great 
> implications
> > for the GNSO.
> > Best,
> > Kathy
> > p.s. how does 5 GNSO representatives but only 3 votes mean? Can anyone
> > previously on the NomCom talk about some complexities that might add
> > (currently I think it is one rep, one vote).
> >
>