Nom Com appointees to the GNSO
- To: <nomcom-review@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Nom Com appointees to the GNSO
- From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:05:38 +0100
Whereas there is merit in continuing with the Nom Com process as a part of
the same is not true of the GNSO Council.
The reasons follow.
1. The "balancing role" of 3 nom com votes as arbitrators between users and
has NEVER occurred in the way envisaged.
2. There is no longer such a balancing role envisaged in the proposed revised
3. Nom Com appointees have commented in the past they often struggle with
they LACK a constituency to consult. Nom Com appointees have told me they were
making decisions based on personal prejudice not wider discussion.
4. More recently the Nom Com chairman when asking what profile of new Nom Com
appointees is required, received only one answer: experts such as legal,
5. Given the need for experts, the nom com process is a clumsy tool poorly
find them. Working groups of the GNSO will need experts and experts should be
members of those working groups as needed.
The Board should remove nom com appointees from the GNSO Council in favour of
ad hoc experts to participate in GNSO policy working groups.
pp AIM - European Brands Association