[NPOC-EC] Our response to the NomComRIWG

[Raoul Plommer]

Hi guys, here's a draft I wrote.

I'm sure it's got opportunities to be more tactful, so I'm hoping we could
do this together. Please comment on this email thread and we'll send it
before the DL today.

Dear NomComRWIG,

The Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC) are in support
of Option 2 or 3, with a preference for Option 3 as this would not demand
the long process of a bylaw change and which would give our constituency
the representation that we seek.

As ICANN seeks to strengthen the multi-stakeholder model and ensure more
equitable participation by all its community members and stakeholders, this
would be a good step in that direction.

The rebalancing of NomCom and especially within the GNSO, is almost five
years overdue, since the founding of NPOC, since its charter was approved
by ICANN in November 2010. The balancing act should've therefore happened
already by 2015 latest. It hasn't until now. The current situation is, that
the GNSO stakeholder groups are supposed to be somewhat equal, at least in
the face of distributing equal shares of power on the NomCom. Otherwise
this multi stakeholder model is not even trying to hold up an illusion of
groups with equal say in how the ICANN community is run and how its
policies are made.

NPOC being the only constituency lacking a seat at the NomCom is an obvious
fairness issue and I can't help but wonder, on what rationale can the CSG
have FOUR seats, while it's peer SGs only have one each. It seems that the
CSG has a lot more power and say in the leadership positions of ICANN, than
CPH and NCSG put together. If we start to pull in reasons, on how many
types of non-commercial interest groups we could have within ICANN "but
just haven't got around in making a constituency for it", we'd end up with
at least as many constituencies that the CSG has.

Personally, I think the most just and balancing solution without changing
much at all, would be to give two seats to each SG and let them appoint
appropriate representatives for them and take the eighth seat from GAC, who
hasn't used it in over ten years, if ever(?).

In any case, the NomCom composition is skewed in the most obvious way to
one beneficiary and it would definitely be in the interests of the ongoing
legitimacy of the GNSO and ICANN to reduce the power of CSG, in favor of at
least its immediate counterpart, which is the NCSG.

At the moment, the CSG can overrule anything in NomCom by majority of one,
as opposed to the rest of the GNSO having only three representatives at the
NomCom. This is the most blatant injustice and discrepancy here. If you'd
like to carry on with what we have, then we might as well stop talking
about a multi stakeholder model and start calling it what it is; a business
model.
--

-Raoul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-ec/attachments/20200814/494d3d1d/attachment.html>