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

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

It may be worth further discussion.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 9:50 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Philip Sheppard; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Nom Comm appointee roles 
> 
> 
> 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
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>