Nominating Committee Draft Input
Dear All, On behalf of John Berard, please find attached a first draft of a possible GNSO Council response to the public comment forum on the Nominating Committee recommendations from the Board Working Group. Please note that further revisions may be made to this document in the next couple of days by the drafters, but in order to meet the document deadline, I am sending this to you now. Best regards, Marika
Well done; these are clear and definitive statements From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 6:00 PM To: Council GNSO Cc: john@crediblecontext.com Subject: [council] Nominating Committee Draft Input Dear All, On behalf of John Berard, please find attached a first draft of a possible GNSO Council response to the public comment forum on the Nominating Committee recommendations from the Board Working Group. Please note that further revisions may be made to this document in the next couple of days by the drafters, but in order to meet the document deadline, I am sending this to you now. Best regards, Marika
+1 [cid:361230613@02122014-2FE2]Osvaldo Novoa Subgerente General Antel Guatemala 1075, Nivel 22 Montevideo, 11800 Uruguay Tel. +598 2928 6400 Fax. +598 2928 6401 ________________________________ De: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] En nombre de Reed, Daniel A Enviado el: Lunes, 01 de Diciembre de 2014 23:19 Para: Marika Konings; Council GNSO CC: john@crediblecontext.com Asunto: [council] RE: Nominating Committee Draft Input Well done; these are clear and definitive statements From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 6:00 PM To: Council GNSO Cc: john@crediblecontext.com Subject: [council] Nominating Committee Draft Input Dear All, On behalf of John Berard, please find attached a first draft of a possible GNSO Council response to the public comment forum on the Nominating Committee recommendations from the Board Working Group. Please note that further revisions may be made to this document in the next couple of days by the drafters, but in order to meet the document deadline, I am sending this to you now. Best regards, Marika ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
Hi, I am in somewhat of a quandary on this. I am not bothered by the Nomcom proposal. - i do not think it hampers diversity. And while I understand that the representation of business was lowered, the representation of non commercials was not lowered and thus I object to indicating that the proposal does so. The current representation of business on the nomcom is disproportionate at this point and I support eliminating this double representation of big and little business; this historical double representation of the business constituency is not something I can support. I strongly support bringing Nomcom support for the GNSO into line with the SG model. - i support equal footing in representation of the various SG, as well as SOAC - I so not see a problem with the representational model But my SG may indeed be more in agreement with what is written than me, I believe they may support the continued exclusion of the GAC as well. The only thing that bothers me about the proposal is that they set out to make the Nomcom smaller and they instead made it bigger. I am uncomfortable at this point with calling the opinion unanimous, and though I expect it has consensus we should wait to see if that is indeed the case. avri On 02-Dec-14 00:59, Marika Konings wrote:
Dear All,
On behalf of John Berard, please find attached a first draft of a possible GNSO Council response to the public comment forum on the Nominating Committee recommendations from the Board Working Group. Please note that further revisions may be made to this document in the next couple of days by the drafters, but in order to meet the document deadline, I am sending this to you now.
Best regards,
Marika
Hi Avri. Good thoughts. How do you (and others) recommend we proceed? I realize that voting is a non-starter on WGs when testing for consensus, but is it a requirement for actions or statements from the Council? Sincerely curious--- J. From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 at 0:13 To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Nominating Committee Draft Input Hi, I am in somewhat of a quandary on this. I am not bothered by the Nomcom proposal. - i do not think it hampers diversity. And while I understand that the representation of business was lowered, the representation of non commercials was not lowered and thus I object to indicating that the proposal does so. The current representation of business on the nomcom is disproportionate at this point and I support eliminating this double representation of big and little business; this historical double representation of the business constituency is not something I can support. I strongly support bringing Nomcom support for the GNSO into line with the SG model. - i support equal footing in representation of the various SG, as well as SOAC - I so not see a problem with the representational model But my SG may indeed be more in agreement with what is written than me, I believe they may support the continued exclusion of the GAC as well. The only thing that bothers me about the proposal is that they set out to make the Nomcom smaller and they instead made it bigger. I am uncomfortable at this point with calling the opinion unanimous, and though I expect it has consensus we should wait to see if that is indeed the case. avri On 02-Dec-14 00:59, Marika Konings wrote: Dear All, On behalf of John Berard, please find attached a first draft of a possible GNSO Council response to the public comment forum on the Nominating Committee recommendations from the Board Working Group. Please note that further revisions may be made to this document in the next couple of days by the drafters, but in order to meet the document deadline, I am sending this to you now. Best regards, Marika
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
James M. Bladel -
Marika Konings -
Novoa, Osvaldo -
Reed, Daniel A