[NPOC-EC] Our response to the NomComRIWG

[Raoul Plommer]

Does anybody want to comment on this draft going out? Has NCSG prepared a
separate one instead? We need to send this today after the extension we got
and the responses will be gone through at the NomComRIWG tonight at 19 UTC.

If nobody has anything to add, we'll send this pretty much as it is.

-Raoul

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 17:55, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20200820/99dedff3/attachment.html>