_______________________________________________Thanks Bruna, Mark, Farell, Tomslin, and Susan,
All, I think the reason for Susan’s proposed edit is coming from the current text which uses the singular article “a”, i.e. that at the end of the rebalancing each GNSO constituency would get “a” (singular) delegate to the Nom Com.
- Do you support the view that the current composition of the NomCom needs to be rebalanced? Please explain why or why not.
GNSO Council response: Composition of the NomCom is based on appointments made by bodies defined in the ICANN Bylaws. Article 8.2 of the ICANN Bylaws regarding NomCom composition refers to GNSO organizations as per Article 11. However, the only NCSG constituency listed is NCUC. Accordingly, Article 8.2 of the Bylaws should be amended to add a seat on the NomCom for NPOC. The GNSO Council supports rebalancing the current composition to allow for all GNSO Constituencies to appoint a delegate to the NomCom.
Combined with our request to add NPOC, this use of the singular article “a” could be read as the Council’s desire to remove one NomCom seat from the BC (which has 2) and give that to NPOC. If that is not our will, we need to correct the singular article “a”, perhaps along the lines of “at least one.” I think this makes more sense anyway, since why should we limit ourselves this early in the discussions when others in the community are certainly going to advocate for more seats for them while the Council, in the current draft, is advocating for simply reshuffling what we already have.
If it is our will, however, to eliminate one seat for the BC and transfer that seat to the NPOC, I don’t think we should hide a ball that big – let’s just say it directly. I expect the BC reps may want to reply to this email.
For clarity, I think we should not include Susan’s addition, but modify our response on 2. to read:
- Do you support the view that the current composition of the NomCom needs to be rebalanced? Please explain why or why not.
GNSO Council response: Composition of the NomCom is based on appointments made by bodies defined in the ICANN Bylaws. Article 8.2 of the ICANN Bylaws regarding NomCom composition refers to GNSO organizations as per Article 11. However, the only NCSG constituency listed is NCUC. Accordingly, Article 8.2 of the Bylaws should be amended to add a seat on the NomCom for NPOC. The GNSO Council supports rebalancing the current composition to allow for all GNSO Constituencies to appoint at least one delegate to the NomCom.
Hope this helps.
Best,
Paul
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Bruna Martins dos Santos via council
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2023 4:08 AM
To: Mark W. Datysgeld <mark@governanceprimer.com>
Cc: GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org>; Julie Bisland via Gnso-secs <gnso-secs@icann.org>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG
Subject: Re: [council] NomCom Rebalancing response
Id like to also support Tomslin point on this matter. And I trust that the language that is on the document translates well NCSG's concerns regarding the addition of a seat in order to better represent the current configuration of GNSO at NomCom. And, in all honesty, I think this discussion is about remedying the lack of proper Non-Commercial representation at the committee, above all.
Best,
Bruna
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 3:19 AM Mark W. Datysgeld via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
We could probably do with CPH or NomCom appointees input here.
---
Mark W. Datysgeld
Director at Governance Primer
ICANN GNSO Councilor
From: Farell FOLLY via council <council@gnso.icann.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 2, 2023 19:41
To: Tomslin Samme-Nlar
Cc: GNSO-Chairs; Julie Bisland via Gnso-secs; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG
Subject: Re: [council] NomCom Rebalancing response
I would second Tomslin on this.
Best regards
@__f_f__
____________________________________
Lt-Colonel Farell FOLLY, Ir.
GNSO Councillor - ICANN (Los Angeles, USA).
On 2 Jul 2023, at 12:57, Tomslin Samme-Nlar via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear Susan, all
I would like to politely disagree with the proposed change. I think section 4 as originally written answers the question of 'how' enough from a council perspective.
Warmly,
Tomslin
On Sat, 1 July 2023, 02:30 Susan Payne via council, <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Hi Sebastien
Thanks for this, and thanks to those who worked on the draft. I have proposed one addition to section 4 : “For avoidance of doubt, we do not believe that this should be effected by removing any seats from other GNSO groups.” I would trust that my Council colleagues would not disagree with this.
thanks
Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy
Com Laude
T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250
Ext 255
We are pleased to launch our new YouTube channel
council mailing list
council@gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.