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

["Tony Holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ed

Its disappointing that you’re unable to support the revised document as it was 
only updated to align with the input received by 31st December, as agreed 
during the last Council call. 

 

I did indicate before the holiday that I’d only received input from Avri up to 
that time and would update the document to reflect that if no other input was 
received by the 31st. The amended document therefore only reflects that 
request. If you had a problem with changing the document in that manner, that 
was the time to flag that, particularly as it was also agreed voting would 
follow very quickly once the comment period was closed (31st December).

 

>From the ISPCP perspective and I would suspect other Constituencies as well, 
>we would also prefer the original text, but the agreement was the final 
>version should reflect all requested changes received prior to the 31st. If 
>your view, or members of your Constituency strongly differed from Avri’s 
>request then it needed to be stated before the closure of that comment period. 
>Unfortunately that didn’t happen. 

 

To be fair the only person who gave any indication that different opinions may 
exist within the NCSG was Avri!

 

Regards

Tony

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Edward Morris
Sent: 04 January 2015 19:45
To: Tony Holmes; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Glen de Saint Géry; John Berard
Subject: Re: [council] Revised comments on the NomCom Recommendations from the 
Board Working Group

 

 

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