Re: [council] Revised comments on the NomCom Recommendations from the Board Working Group

["Edward Morris" <emorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everybody,

I would like to thank Tony and others involved in crafting such a thoughtful 
document that largely, although not completely, represents my thoughts and, 
I believe, those of a great number of those in the noncommercial community 
whom I represent on Council. I regret, though, that due to changes made to 
the document since our last Council meeting I will be voting no rather than 
supporting submission of this public comment.

Deletion of the term “civil society” from the final version makes it 
impossible for me to support submission. Reducing GNSO input to the NomCom, 
while increasing the role of the GAC, is something I very much oppose for 
many of the reasons stated in the original letter. I could support 
submission of that document.

Reducing commercial representation, the subject of the revised text, is not 
something that particularly bothers me. With NPOC being denied an 
appointment to the NomCom, commercial interests within the GNSO are 
currently overrepresented there. That said, I was prepared to support the 
letter because greatly expanding representation of ALAC, the GAC, the ASO 
and ccNSO at the expense of the GNSO is simply bad policy and does nothing 
to solve the problem of the underrepresentation of noncommercial interests 
on the NomCom.

A word about timing. Notification of the changed wording was sent to Council 
members on December 31st. Ballots were sent just after midnight on January 
3rd. I would submit that notifying Council members of changes to a document 
on New Years Eve and expecting them to object within 2 days is a bad idea. 
In many parts of the world, including the jurisdiction I’m currently in, 
not a single working day has passed since we were notified of the change in 
wording. There simply was not sufficient time to object to the changes, at 
least for those of us partaking in New Years Eve celebrations and recovery 
thereof. We could have done better and should have.

I recognize that the changed wording was made in response to objections by 
one of my fellow NCSG Council members, one I admire and respect very much. 
Despite my admiration and respect, we may occasionally disagree on issues 
and that’s something that should  be acknowledged throughout the Council. 
The NCSG is a very diverse community. We recognize that by giving our 
Councilors the freedom to vote as they feel best. No one NCSG Councilor 
speaks for another. That said, I was not the only  other Councilor from the 
NCSG who was considering supporting  the original letter. I’m sorry that  
I, at least, will not be able to do so at this time.

Kind Regards,

Ed