RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] FW: Discussion paper

["Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Among Philip's points that I would like to emphasize, 

>b) Board seats. The present GNSO structure has meant that only a
candidate >supported by the contract parties has won.

This seems true to us and we would like that to change. 

>c) Nominating Committee appointees. Their number (3) is a function of
the >present GNSO structure. Their relevance in a reformed structure is
unclear. 

Given the old GNSO constituency structure the Nomcom appointees played a
vital role, not as "ballast" but as independent balance. They did indeed
prevent the council from being dominated by a group of insiders,
especially when Avri became co-chair. The old GNSO was a perpetual dual
between suppliers and the business constituencies, with a helpless and
marginalized noncommercial constituency in between; add Nomcom into that
mix and there was at least some hope of movement.

However Philip is exactly right that those needs pertain to the old GNSO
structure and not necessarily the new one. For one thing, in the new
GNSO ALAC members, both as individuals and as ALSs, will play a much
bigger role in the Noncommercial SG and the Commercial SG. ALAC appoints
the largest number of people to the Nomcom, so what is the point of them
having two channels into the process? 

As for this argument:

> -----Original Message-----
> an insiders body. I know that on the board, the existence of nomcom
> appointees serves as some sort of argument against anti-trust
> accusations.  

I don't see this. It is the presence of ALAC, Noncommercial users and
commercial users (non-suppliers) that shields GNSO from antitrust
concerns. Nomcom could, if it chose to, appoint registrars or domainers
to the GNSO council. There is no inherent connection between Nomcom
appointees and public, non-supplier representation. There is an inherent
connection between NCSG, CSG and public interest, non-supplier
representation. The latter two stakeholder groups are by definition not
suppliers.