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

["Edward Morris" <emorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tony,

Thanks again for the hard work you've put in on this.

The only input I'm aware of from Avri is her December 16th post where she 
requested "unanimous" be changed to something less encompassing. 
Specifically:

Hi,

I still request that unanimous in the text be replaced with something
like 'most' or even 'a super majority' (not sure we can use the
consensus words without a GNSO process).  I will still not vote for it,
and will write up a comment explaining why, but at least the letter
would be correctly describing the situation in the council.

I do not know how the vote will go, but I am pretty sure it will not be
unanimous.

Thanks

avri

I had absolutely no problem with her request. Obviously the vote was not 
going to be unanimous. I have no knowledge of any request from Avri, or 
anyone else, that the term "civil society" be deleted from the letter.


>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. 


Again, I've checked the archives and I see no submission from Avri or anyone 
else asking that you delete the term "civil society". If there had been I 
would have objected. I'm not clairvoyant: I can't object to changes that 
aren't in view. There was no indication onlist, prior to the 31st as you 
state, that the term 'civil society' was going to be dropped from the 
letter. 

Your reasoning seems to be that if Avri is going to oppose something it 
should be assumed that the rest of the NCSG councillors will be joining her 
in opposition, unless we speak up. You can't make that assumption. Our 
members give us the freedom to use our judgement to vote the way we feel 
best. We will, at times, have differing views reflecting, I hope, the 
diverse views of our membership.

I supported the original letter, I supported Avri's requested changes (given 
her opposition) but, regrettably, I can't support the final version of the 
letter,  which incorporates changes that I don't see requested anywhere on 
list.

Thanks again for all of your hard work,

Ed
 

 

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