<html><body>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;"> </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; font-family: Tahoma; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; background-image: none;
background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: padding-box;
background-clip: border-box; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0);
background-size: auto; background-position: 0% 0%; background-repeat: repeat
repeat;">
<div>Hi everybody,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would like to thank Tony and others involved in crafting such a
thoughtful document that largely, although not completely, represents my
thoughts and, I believe, those of a great number of those in the
noncommercial community whom I represent on Council. I regret, though, that
due to changes made to the document since our last Council meeting I will be
voting no rather than supporting submission of this public comment.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Deletion of the term “civil society” from the final version
makes it impossible for me to support submission. Reducing GNSO input to the
NomCom, while increasing the role of the GAC, is something I very much
oppose for many of the reasons stated in the original letter. I could
support submission of that document.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Reducing commercial representation, the subject of the revised text, is
not something that particularly bothers me. With NPOC being denied an
appointment to the NomCom, commercial interests within the GNSO are
currently overrepresented there. That said, I was prepared to support the
letter because greatly expanding representation of ALAC, the GAC, the ASO
and ccNSO at the expense of the GNSO is simply bad policy and does nothing
to solve the problem of the underrepresentation of noncommercial interests
on the NomCom.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A word about timing. Notification of the changed wording was sent to
Council members on December 31<sup>st</sup>. Ballots were sent just after
midnight on January 3<sup>rd</sup>. I would submit that notifying Council
members of changes to a document on New Years Eve and expecting them to
object within 2 days is a bad idea. In many parts of the world, including
the jurisdiction I’m currently in, not a single working day has passed
since we were notified of the change in wording. There simply was not
sufficient time to object to the changes, at least for those of us partaking
in New Years Eve celebrations and recovery thereof. We could have done
better and should have.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I recognize that the changed wording was made in response to objections
by one of my fellow NCSG Council members, one I admire and respect very
much. Despite my admiration and respect, we may occasionally disagree on
issues and that’s something that should be acknowledged
throughout the Council. The NCSG is a very diverse community. We recognize
that by giving our Councilors the freedom to vote as they feel best. No one
NCSG Councilor speaks for another. That said, I was not the only other
Councilor from the NCSG who was considering supporting the original
letter. I’m sorry that I, at least, will not be able to do so at
this time.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kind Regards,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ed<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</body></html>