Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm appointee roles

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I do not agree with the conclusions you draw from your analysis.

The main point is the nomcom provides the possibility for a tie  
breaker should the vote break along the contracted party - consumer  
lines.  And I believe this is necessary.
I also do not agree the it is sufficient to give the nomcom's outside  
voice a seat at the table while disenfranchising that voice.  I  
believe that vote is critical in keeping the policy process from  
becoming, or looking like, a trust of insiders who are constantly  
trading advantage.  I also believe that the logic that dictates that  
outside voices are  legally necessary in the Board's decisions also  
pertains in the policy recommendation stage - especially since the  
GNSO can force by its supermajority, the board into a supermajority  
voting requirement.
a.

On 11 Jul 2008, at 18:05, Metalitz, Steven wrote:

> Reflecting on our useful discussion yesterday re role of Nom Comm
> appointees to the GNSO council:
> One reason given was a tie-breaking role in voting.  I went back and
> looked at the "GNSO Council voting patterns 2005-2008" document  
> prepared
> by staff in Paris.  Of the "28 voting events taken by roll call and
> showing identifiable votes per constituency, where the outcome was not
> unanimous" (these were the shaded entries in the document), I did not
> find any which would have been tie votes but for the votes cast by Nom
> Comm appointees.
> I did find two votes out of 28 in which (if I counted correctly) the  
> Nom
> Comm appointee votes created a 2/3 majority of those voting which  
> would
> not otherwise have existed.  Neither of these involved a  
> recommendation
> being sent to the Board where the presence of a 2/3 supermajority on  
> the
> Council would have made a difference. One was a vote on whether to  
> send
> a letter regarding travel funding (3 Jan 08); the other was a vote on
> one of the two proposed formulations of the purpose of Whois, which  
> was
> intended to guide future work on policy development but not (at that
> point) to be sent to the Board (12 April 06).
> It is always possible that councillors changed the votes they would
> otherwise have cast to avoid having the Nom Comm appointees break a  
> tie.
> I don't know any examples of that; perhaps some of the council members
> on this list do.
> I found the council voting patterns chart a bit hard to follow (you  
> need
> to double the votes in the first two columns to account for weighted
> voting, abstentions are not noted, etc.) and I certainly might have
> miscounted, so I would welcome anyone else checking my work, but  
> what I
> saw suggests that the tie-breaking role of Nom Comm appointees has not
> been significant, at least for the past four years.
> This leaves the role of these appointees in "bringing new voices" to  
> the
> table, or in providing expertise that the Council needs but that
> constituency reps cannot provide.  As we discussed to some extent
> yesterday, if these roles are important, we should consider whether  
> they
> can be fulfilled in other ways, such as through representation of
> At-Large on the Council, or through appointed experts who could  
> serve on
> the council in a non-voting capacity.
>
> Steve
>
> -