[NPOC-EC] NomCom

[Joan Kerr]

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/20200731/964ec56a/attachment.html>