[NPOC-EC] Our response to the NomComRIWG

[farzaneh badii]

Raoul

Thanks for this.

A couple of comments off the top of my head I haven't looked at the
proposal yet

- we filed a comment as NCSG which we enumerated the problems with the
imbalance I think around 2 years ago. They didn't consider our comments but
when we asked why and how can we fix it the review team said we are going
to form a council or something like that and we should tell that council.
Is this RIWG the group? If so you can tell them that they promised to
review this.

- we should make this about both NCSG and NPOC. NCSG as a stakeholder group
only has one rep- while CSG has more.

- ISPC can sympathize with us. I have talked to them about this. Try that
route first. They said they didn’t even know.

-mention that we have been raising this issue over and over. George
Sadowsky told you to fix it during the review. We filed comments. We told
the reviewers. Nothing happened. So the acknowledgment that this is an
unfair imbalance is there. But their processes to fix things don’t work.

- In a constituency letter, you can’t bring your personal views. Get rid of
personally but also what do you mean we haven’t gotten around creating
constituencies otherwise we would have had more. I don’t think this wording
would do good. Consider reframing it by saying that: the CSG has no
justification to have 4 members, when it’s not even on the basis of the
number of its constituencies.

- you need to elaborate on why this imbalance affect their legitimacy. Tell
them they are appointing some of the board members - if this results in
Board composition bias since  they are the last chain of command, if there
is an imbalance and a majority view that accord with one stakeholder’s
interest the  multistakeholder processes might not be effective. (They say
board should protect the interest of corporation and not stakeholders but
we know thats not the case but don’t mention that)
- not getting your comment about gac rep. Lets talk about ourselves and not
provide solutions that create more enemies than allies.
- i am not sure about your last paragraph. Does NomCom has a quorum
threshold etc? How does that work? Better check for accuracy.




Farzaneh


On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 10:55 AM 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
>
>
>

-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/npoc-ec/attachments/20200820/199453cb/attachment.html>