NPOC hosted a Community Outreach event in Abu Dhabi, ICANN60, with more than 60 people attending in a very interactive session. The speakers included: Carlos Raul Gutierrez, from GNSO Council; Agustina Callegari, from Onboarding Program and Adam Peake, from ICANN Staff.
Outreach in Newcomers event
Inside of our activities for Outreach two of our members, Agustina Callegari and Juan Manuel Rojas, were speaking to ICANN60 newcomers about what is NPOC and how can them join us. This session was made on last October 29th.
On Tuesday,October 31st, we hosted our Constituency Day. Our speakers were:
Later on the week our Vice-Chair, Raoul Plommer, was talking about NPOC in the fellows session answering their questions about our work and how they can join us.
NPOC was participating also in events such as Women in DNS, NCPH Intersessional Planning and NCSG Policy Meeting.
“Dear board members, my name is Raoul Plommer and I’m from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.
I’ve learned a perplexing fact that I’d like you to enlighten me about.
Why is it, that within NomCom, which has great power in selecting our leaders of this multistakeholder community, has appropriated six seats for entities, that are motivated by profit and just one for the non-commercial interests? In other words, the balance is badly tilted towards interests on making money, at the expense of us, who feel that human rights deserve more representation than one against six. This is also against the principles of fostering diversity within ICANN. Specifically, why does the Commercial Stakeholder group have four seats, and other SGs within the GNSO have only one each?
I would like to point out, that the other user constituency within the NCSG, NPOC, has no seats on the NomCom and I’ve also learned that academia used to have a seat on the NomCom seven years ago but it was taken away, leaving the NCSG with only one.
I’ve also heard, that if this situation isn’t rectified soon, the NomCom will stay this way for many years to come. I suggest that our fresh board takes charge of this unfair situation and puts it right at the top of their list of priorities. The matter is urgent and I find the current situation completely unacceptable.
Now, For those of you, who don’t remember, I’ll admit that I made this almost exact same comment one year ago in Hyderabad, but now that the NomCom review is ongoing, I feel that it’s more relevant than ever. Last time I was answered along the lines of “wait for the review”
For the sake of not sounding like a completely broken record, I think good critique should always be accompanied with a solution to the problem. My suggestion is, that within the GNSO, all the stakeholder groups should have two seats in the NomCom, which would bring the total number of GNSO seats to eight, instead of seven. That in turn can be defended with the much higher load of work than in previous years, when the NomCom was last reviewed.
In addition, I would like to invite the registry and registrar stakeholder groups to support this balancing act, so please come and discuss how we can make GNSO more equal, regarding the composition of NomCom. Somehow I doubt that the CSG is going to help us. I’m not saying Carthago should be destroyed, but that NPOC should have its seat in the Nominating Committee. Thank you.”