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

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

That's a very interesting concept, Chuck!
Could we have Nomcom appoint the GNSO chair? and leave the policy issues
to the constituencies? That seems like a very good idea at first blush.


Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:22 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Philip Sheppard; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm appointee roles 
> 
> 
> Let me add one more to my list.  
> 
> 5. I think there is value in having a chair that is independent of any
> specific constituency; of course this is dependent on having 
> NomCom reps
> that have the leadership skills needed, which may not always be the
> case.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:13 AM
> > To: Philip Sheppard; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm appointee roles 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>