<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida Grande',Sans-Serif; font-size: 14px"><div>Thanks Avri.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This sounds like a reasonable plan to me and is rather elegant in its simplicity. You actually don't need a lawyer or two to explain it to you, unlike many other aspects of our internal governing systems. :)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ed </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="-webkit-touch-callout: none; -webkit-user-select: none; -khtml-user-select: none;-moz-user-select: none;-ms-user-select: none;-o-user-select: none;user-select: none;"> </div>
<div> </div>
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%" />
<div><span style="font-family: tahoma,arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><b>From</b>: "avri doria" <avri@acm.org><br />
<b>Sent</b>: Friday, February 24, 2017 12:34 AM<br />
<b>To</b>: ncsg-pc@lists.ncsg.is<br />
<b>Subject</b>: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process</span>
<div> </div>
Hi, I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. - as many nominees as come forward in a week. - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against NOTA - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our act together. - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we get our act together. avri On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: > > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next week? > > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next week? or > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the CSG and > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether > should be nomination and/or self nomination. > > In the interim start work on the process? > > Matthew > > > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG quickly. at >> least covering the topic of nomination. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com >> <mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>>: >> >> Hi Matt, >> >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this topic. >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the process >> and adjust the whole timeline. >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. >> >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are >> non-negotiable with regard to the process. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears@cdt.org >> <mailto:mshears@cdt.org>>: >> >> Thanks Rafik >> >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal with it >> and we are running out of time. >> >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, which >> was not really discussed further. Then we had some general >> discussion about the need to do something on the Board >> selection process. People voiced their views on different >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others >> please jump in as I may have missed some important >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG proposal >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed to be >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. >> >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a process and >> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at >> least the initial stages of the process are underway. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on board >>> seat election. >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what or not >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended >>> intersessional? >>> >>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. >>> >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far from our >>> expectations. >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it by end >>> of this week but we do need to be ready. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process >>> To: <ncph-intersessional2017@icann.org >>> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017@icann.org>> >>> Cc: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a small >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think this >>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of the >>> NCPH on it. >>> >>> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've >>> already started the process without knowing what it is >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. >>> >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the following >>> for consideration: >>> >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between CSG and >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft process. >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the Bylaws), and >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section 11.3(f). >>> >>> A few thoughts and comments: >>> >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go >>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 weeks >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the airplane >>> in the air. >>> >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. >>> >>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we >>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the >>> nomination period). >>> >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different when >>> it comes to voting. >>> >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process agreed >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as >>> precedent for any future process. We just need to get >>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between that and >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to arrange a >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball forward. >>> >>> Thanks for reading, >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO Procedures >>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline >>> for naming the Director was changed from one month to >>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to being >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be updated in >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this error. >>> >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Greg Shatan >>> *C: 917-816-6428 >>> S: gsshatan >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>> gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc@gmail.com >>> <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board Selection Process >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017@icann.org >>> <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017@icann.org> >>> >>> >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, >>> >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed >>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House. >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes >>> from the CPH document. >>> >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but >>> everyone has "edit" >>> rights): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing >>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing> >>> >>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before making it >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. >>> >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of the IPC, >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on >>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have for >>> this year. >>> >>> We look forward to your thoughts. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) >>> >>> *Greg Shatan >>> *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428> >>> S: gsshatan >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428> >>> gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list >>> Ncph-intersessional2017@icann.org >>> <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017@icann.org> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 >>> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc> >> >> -- >> ------------ >> Matthew Shears >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >> + 44 771 2472987 <tel:+44%207712%20472987> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > + 44 771 2472987 > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</div></span>