Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am in full agreement with Tim's comments. I too am worried that it may be
hard to manage "floating" NCAs, although I do see some benefit to having
them. One would hope that the NCAs can bring a level of outside-the-box
thinking to the house they are "assigned" to, and changing these assignments
around mid-term would help bring these different points of views to each
house in turn.

I also agree with Jon Nevett's suggestion that NCAs should be able to
specify a preference. But in the end, who decides which house they are put
in? The NomCom itself?

Stéphane




Le 30/03/09 13:04, « Tim Ruiz » <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> Liz,
> 
> I don't think what you and I are suggesting is that different. Each
> House should have input on the criteria they think is best for an NCA in
> their House, but not actually make the choice. The preferences of the
> NCAs themselves could be another factor. But in my opinion, unless there
> is someone assigned to make a definitive decision (at least when all
> else fails), this just won't work well. However, I do question the
> usefullness of having them float within a term. Seems to add a layer
> complexity with little identifiable benefit.
> 
> Tim  
>  
>   -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
> From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, March 30, 2009 12:54 am
> To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> Hello Tim & Chuck & everyone
> 
> I have been thinking about the role of the Nominating Committee
> representatives -- I am one of the BC elected reps to the Nominating
> Committee.  Of course, the group needs to get broader input on that from
> others in the Nominating Committee realm about how to be most
> constructive.  My personal thoughts are that it would be short sighted
> to have the Nominating Committee's remit extended into appointing
> particular people to particular spots.
> 
> 
> I would have thought it more sensible to have the list of the three
> Nominating Committee representatives prepared and then seek the guidance
> of, say, the existing chair and the chairs of the two houses to balance
> up where the NomCom reps should be seated.  There is also nothing to
> stop us rotating the NomCom reps through each of the houses and the
> floating spot, given that they have two year terms.
> 
> 
> In practice though I would have thought that a good Nominating Committee
> rep would "sit" with a house but be capable of moving and consulting and
> learning through the two houses.  That element is something that, I
> think, needs to be fed back into the Nominating Committee when they are
> doing the fine balancing act of finding the right people for the right
> places for the right time.  That changes each year and it certainly
> changes depending on the Statements of Interest.
> 
> 
> Best wishes.
> 
> 
> Liz
>    ....
> Liz Williams
> +44 1963 364 380 tel
> +44 7824 8777 57 mob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   On 30 Mar 2009, at 03:22, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
>   
> 
> Regarding 12, I was thinking within a single SG not a House, but
> probably wasn't clear about that. But I think the way it is spelled out
> in the bylaws works well, probably better.
> 
> 
> Tim 
> 
> 
>   -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, March 29, 2009 4:49 pm
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the responses Tim. I didn't mean to imply that I thought
> there was a lot work, but I do believe that there is more to do than
> just finish one item. Rather than complicate the redlined document
> further, here are my responses to Tim's comments that were added to
> mine:
> 
> 
> 3. I am okay with Tim's suggestion: ". . set a single target end date
> for completion of all tasks and say that our work plan is proceeding on
> the basis of hitting that date."
> 
> 
> 9. I am not ready to concede the responsibility of apportioning NomCom
> reps to houses solely to the NomCom yet. I personally would like to
> discuss this further. At a minimum, I think it would be helpful to
> provide the NomCom some guidelines for the NomCom reps for each house
> and possibly for the nonvoting seat as well. For example, as I said
> elsewhere in this discussion, I think it would be beneficial for the
> NomCom rep in the contracted party house to have some basic
> understanding of the business and operations of registries and
> registrars; certainly, some of this can be learned but the smaller the
> learning curve, the sooner someone can become productive, the better.
> It is not my place to speak for the users house, but I would think that
> it would be useful if the NomCom rep in that house had a balance of
> experience in both the commercial and non-commercial world and no
> evidence of bias toward commercial or noncommercial interests. Looking
> ahead to Tim's comment for item 10, I don't think we are far apart.
> 
> 
> 11. I do not see my question regarding the GAC as a big issue. I am
> okay if we leave it as is but I simply wanted to raise the issue.
> 
> 
> 12. I don't understand how this approach works for geographic diversity
> requirements for the User SGs: "No two Councilors from the same
> Geographic region." Would they then only be allowed five Councilors
> until the Bylaws are changed? What am I missing here.
> 
> 
> Chuck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:21 PM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
> 
> 
> I think there is some work left to do on a few, but perhaps
> not as much as Chuck. A few that do need work we should be
> able to knock them off quickly, understanding that elements
> may evolve as we see how the new structure works. Spending
> too much time trying to get it perfect is pointless.
> 
> 
> My comments and suggestions are in the attached.
> 
> 
> Tim 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, March 26, 2009 1:51 pm
> To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>,
> <gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> I would agree that a lot of items are done but also think
> there is more than one that still needs work. My comments are
> highlighted in the attached file.
> 
> 
> Chuck 
> 
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>  Philip Sheppard
>  Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 10:19 AM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
> 
> 
> Avri,
> I agree with your proposals and having revisited the list
>  believe all 
>  but one item is done and ready for Council approval.
> I attach suggested way forward.
> The only item left is any voting thresholds not yet addressed.
> 
> 
> Philip
> 
>