[NPOC-EC] NomCom

Sun Aug 2 10:01:10 UTC 2020

It looks like we should really put more pressure on all options but the
first one. They all result in BC with one less seat and NPOC getting one.
Number 3 is fastest and clearest, as well as most certain to result
favorably for us. Definitely my favorite. What do you guys think?

-Raoul

On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 at 18:01, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:

> Hi Raoul, All
>
> Staff input has been removed from these emails.
>
> Please find Donna Austin's summary of the meeting and options:
>
> Hi All
>
>
>
> It seems that we have a collective decision to make on this issue and I’ve
> provided some suggestions below for consideration.
>
>
>
> I’m still not convinced that the proposed solution is really addressing
> Recommendation 10, and on reading the recommendation in full (provided
> below) it seems that the intent of the rebalancing is really not being
> addressed by the solution proposed by the NomCom RIWG. However, I do recall
> that Tom and Cheryl did say that they had explored a number of options and
> this is their recommended solution.
>
>
>
> Based on the call last week expanding the number of NomCom members is not
> possible so the maximum number of seats available to the GNSO is seven. It
> also seems that the reason the GNSO representation has been called out is
> related to the BC having two representatives on the NomCom and the NPOC not
> being represented.
>
>
>
> Barbara, I believe you expressed the view that the BC wants to maintain
> two representatives and we were waiting on a response to Ashley’s question
> about the rationale for the original decision to have two BC
> representatives.
>
>
>
> I believe we have four options:
>
>
>
> 1.      Reject the proposed change to the bylaws in favour of the status
> quo. This would require agreement from all GNSO SGs/Cs.
>
>
>
> 2.      Agree to the proposed change to the bylaws that removes the
> prescriptive representation and develop our own selection process. This
> selection process could be the same that we undertake now in selecting our
> respective candidates and providing these to the NomCom. The process could
> be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures (I say this not knowing what the
> process would be, but this makes the most sense). However, we would need to
> agree on the allocation of the seven slots—the most pragmatic solution
> would be to allocate a representative from each SG/C of the GNSO.
>
>
>
> 3.      Suggest a modification to the bylaws as currently stated to
> include 1 representative from the NPOC and reduce the BC representation
> from 2 to 1. We could also consider adding that in the event the
> composition of the GNSO changes that representation will be reconsidered
> (or words to that effect).
>
>
>
> 4.      Submit individual responses to the NomCom RIWG proposal and let
> them decide how to move forward, which would likely leave us with Option 2.
>
>
>
> Look forward to your thoughts.
>
>
>
> Donna
>
>
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 10: Representation on the NomCom should be re-balanced
> immediately and then be reviewed every five years.*
>
>
>
> Periodically reviewing and re-balancing the NomCom makeup ensures that it
> appropriately reflects the ICANN community, both from a historic and
> prospective vantage point. A recommendation on a precise way to rebalance
> the NomCom would require a comprehensive assessment of representation
> within the ICANN community, including a full understanding of the history
> and possible future of representation within the SOs/ACs. It will also
> require input from the Board and the formation of a cross-constituency
> working group which includes representation from emerging communities or
> groups within the ICANN community. During our assessment, we heard from a
> large number of individuals who suggested the NomCom was unbalanced, both
> across organizations and within organizations (i.e., across constituencies
> within an SO/AC). Not surprisingly, the opinions we heard varied widely and
> were often inconsistent with each other. For example, some people indicated
> that one SO/AC was overrepresented in terms of the number of delegates sent
> to the NomCom from that SO/AC, while others thought such representation was
> needed given the relatively greater diversity of viewpoints held by
> constituencies within that SO/AC compared to other SOs/ACs.
>
>
>
> Ultimately, any rebalancing of the NomCom will require a detailed
> assessment of all ICANN stakeholder groups. ICANN should therefore convene
> a working group immediately, and every five years thereafter, to study how
> best to rebalance the NomCom based on input from each of the organizations
> with representation on the NomCom and the broader ICANN community. Our
> recommendation of five year intervals is based on ICANN’s typical review
> requirements for organizations, as well as our experience with other
> similar, volunteer-based organizations.
>
>
> --
>
> Joan Kerr, Entrepreneur, Artist, Humanitarian
>
> _____________________________________
>
> Chair, Climate Smart Victory Garden Team
>
> Chair, ICANN, Not for Profit Operations Constituency
>
> Chair, IEEE Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
>
> Chair, Science for Peace, Climate Smart Victory Gardens
>
> Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee
>
> Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Canada
>
> UN WSIS Award Recipient, for Content & Creativity
>
> Durham Region Recipient, Community Partnership Award
>
> Founder, Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities
>
> www.joankerr.ca, www.fbsc.org
>
> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
>
> 1-416-907-0783
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-ec/attachments/20200802/d550f510/attachment.html>