Re: [council] Non-Council Member Participation

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

> Process management
> Who reports from a committee of non NC representatives to the NC ? Where
is
> the responsibility to the NC ? Would we allow a whole NC task force of 7
NC
> non members?

Philip, this sounds another story. There has been no precedent for this yet,
yet.
Non-NC member only Committee or Task Force which sounds like a small
version of WG, DNSO.

So, let us explore imagining NC is going to form such non-NC members
only Task Force. As it was pointed out, how are we going to implement
"geographical diversity" among non-NC members?

Together with "Geographical diversity", "7 constituencies rule" should be
applied to this non-NC members. How about ccTLD, then? Since there was
full support on ccSO proposal in Stockholm during DNSO report from NC
members in general except Non-commercial representatives, how are you
going to deal with ccTLD participation in DNSO? If I understand this
correctly,
ccTLD constituency didn't want to remain in the DNSO.

> NC meetings
> Do all non NC committee members attend NC meetings? Why not if they are
part
> of the process. (Theoretical maximum based on current NC task forces is
> therefore an NC meeting of 55 people +ICANN+DNSO sec).

I cannot quite get it how this number, 55,  comes from.

8 NC Task Force * 7 = 56?

Are we going to ask all those NC TF works to be delegated to other
non-council members? Is this sort of another mechanism for
consensus-building
process instead of Working Groups? And then why should we artificially
restrict
the number of participation? It can be 20 from each constituency.

8 Task Force * 20 * 7 = 1120

Each Task Force has 140 participants. Sounds similar...

For the last how are we going to secure GA's participation?
Well, if we consider ccTLD is out and GA will be considered as another
stakeholders it is still 7, though.

YJ