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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the work you and John put into this letter, and I apologise for 
getting back to you so late, but was largely offline during the holidays.

I also voted “NO”, although my reasons are probably different from Ed’s. During 
the last council meeting, we were granted time to take the draft letter back to 
our stakeholder groups, and there was a discussion on the NCSG list that took 
place. In voting against the submission of this input to the public comment 
period, I understand that I am still not being very representative of what I 
believe to be the majority opinion within the NCSG. Like I said before, I 
actually like the BWG-NomCom’s report. I believe that there should be more 
equal representation across the different SOs/ACs. I also don’t see much of a 
problem with the suggested delegate voting system being proposed either. If I 
understand the proposal on this correctly, it’ll be left up to the GNSO to work 
out how this system will be used by us.

IMHO, ideally, having overbearing GNSO influence on the NomCom’s decision 
making in order to (for example) get more GNSO representatives appointed to the 
ICANN board shouldn’t be necessary. I would have alternatively liked to see an 
additional change being proposed; of more equal representation on the NomCom 
accompanied by fewer NomCom-appointed board members, and more board member 
being elected directly by the GNSO.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 4, 2015, at 9:30 PM, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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