Nom Com appointees to the GNSO

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>]

Whereas there is merit in continuing with the Nom Com process as a part of 
Board selection,
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 
contract parties
has NEVER occurred in the way envisaged.
2. There is no longer such a balancing role envisaged in the proposed revised 
GNSO
structure.
3. Nom Com appointees have commented in the past they often struggle with 
decisions because
they LACK a constituency to consult. Nom Com appointees have told me they were 
uncomfortable
making decisions based on personal prejudice not wider discussion.
4. More recently the Nom Com chairman when asking what profile of new Nom Com 
GNSO
appointees is required, received only one answer: experts such as legal, 
economic or
consumer policy.
5. Given the need for experts, the nom com process is a clumsy tool poorly 
constructed to
find them. Working groups of the GNSO will need experts and experts should be 
found as
members of those working groups as needed.
 
Conclusion
The Board should remove nom com appointees from the GNSO Council in favour of 
staff finding
ad hoc experts to participate in GNSO policy working groups.
 
 
 
Philip Sheppard
pp AIM - European Brands Association