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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Your point is well taken Philip but I would offer the following:

1. It will probably take quite awhile to achieve the BGC WG goals of
full stakeholder representation.

2. It is likely that we will never achieve full stakeholder
representation for two reasons, 1) it is a huge task and 2) it will
constantly be changing.

3. Even if we were able to achieve full stakeholder representation,
there will always be people within stakeholder groups who are not
involved in ICANN processes and there independent perspective could be
valuable.

4. Certain kinds of expertise that are missing on the Council at various
times can be provided by NomCom reps.

Whether these are sufficient to sway the debate, we will have to decide,
but I do believe they are worthy of consideration.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 3:36 AM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm appointee roles 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets move this argument away from personalities.
> 
> For me the logic gap in the concept of nomcom appointees is 
> the following.
> 
> The new commercial users group is intended to outreach and 
> present a compromise position of the diverse views of the  
> globe's commercial users.
> The new non-commercial users group is intended to outreach 
> and present a compromise position of the diverse views of the 
> globe's non-commercial users.
> 
> Just what perspective is left for NomCom delegates?
> By what logic are three votes more relevant than a process 
> that outreaches and presents a compromise position of the 
> diverse views of the globe's users?
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
>