<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">hi everyone,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I am not sure if you all got this response from Greg to our proposal but forwarding it anyway.</div><div class="gmail_extra">any comments to his questions? I can interpret that they are fine with the deadline we set for the nominations while we have to work for the remaining fo the process. I think that interview of candidates before the 1st round is ok and we can do that during Copenhagen meeting.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Rafik</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">2017-03-02 1:42 GMT+09:00 Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Rafik and all,</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Some observations. </div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">First, I wonder if there is a better email list for this discussion, since this one is both under- and over-inclusive (I don't mind the over-inclusiveness, but some in NCPH SG/C leadership are not on this list).</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>we have the old NCPH list <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership</a> and used for previous elections. but I also saw a notification of yet another mailing list few days ago. the former may need to updated for officers from eacg SG</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Second, any approach we adopt for this cycle is "one time only," and we need to make a separate decision on a long-term approach.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Comparing the two approaches:</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">1. There are distinct differences in approach between the CPH process (adapted to the CSG proposal) and the NCSG proposal. It's not as clear when there would be distinct differences in result.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">2. The biggest differences are: (a) participation of the NCA vs. not; (b) (super)majority voting of Councilors vs. need to agree (at the SG-to-SG level; "voices" come from Council seats vs. internal SG processes). The NCSG process essentially works through the Council structure of the House, while CPH/CSG process essentially works through the House structure (without reference to Council). For the sake of discussion, we can assume both are valid approaches.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">3. From these different approaches, I think the different results would occur when the leading candidate is not broadly acceptable. Under the NCSG approach, with the NCA's participation a single vote from one SG, along with a unanimous vote from the other SG + the NCA is sufficient for victory (i.e., 5/6 of one SG could vote against a candidate, and that candidate would still win). Under the CSG approach, one would need a positive position from both SGs (however arrived at within the SG) to select a director. The NCSG approach is more likely to yield a result, but also capable of yielding a very divided result. Deadlock can only result from (a) a "party-line" vote, (b) 1 Councilor from SG1 voting with SG2, while the NCA votes with SG1, or (c) a real scramble, where both SGs splinter, but neither mixed bloc can muster 8 votes. The CSG approach is less likely to yield a result before deadlock, but less likely to yield a divided result (and divisions would be worked out within each SG). In either case, deadlock is likely to yield a compromise candidate. </div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Commenting on the NCSG proposal, aside from the overall difference in approach:</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">1. We seem to be informally already in the nomination period, but I agree we need to have a hard date for the end of the period. March 10 is probably OK, but we have to project out the remaining timeline.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">2. I think we need a better view of the candidates before any votes are taken. I would suggest that interview calls take place before the first round, and that they be divided by SG. A substitute (but not a great one, in my view) is to require written candidate statements before the first round. If we do that, the candidates would be well advised to address their views on the key issues that occupy each SG and C (so we aren't left guessing on the issues most likely to drive support or lack of support).</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">3. If we get to the point where NOTA beats the leader, we should have a timeline to resolve the issue before the director is seated in November. We should not contemplate leaving the seat open. (We really would need to decide before the NomCom does, because the NomCom's options may change based on the geographic region of the NCPH Director.) Alternatively, we could leave the sitting director in place until a decision is made, but this may create perverse incentives.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">4. CSG Constituencies do not have PCs as far as I know. CSG has an Excomm with 2 reps from each Constituency. At the Constituency level, IPC has "leadership" (officers + councilors). Can't speak to BC and ISPCP off the top of my head. So the conference participants would need to be tweaked.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">At the risk of stating the obvious, we need to quickly resolve which of the two approaches to adopt. Once we do that, the remaining issues are relatively minor. </div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I have tried not to make a case for either approach in this email, but only to point out differences. However, I think we need some people to make a case for one approach or the other, and quickly, so that the powers of discussion and persuasion can work their magic and we can come to a agreement. </div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">So, I leave you at the end of this lengthy email with a question, <b>why is one proposal better than the other?</b></div><span class="gmail-m_8192583573359726082HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail-m_8192583573359726082m_1471916571654835246gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"></p><div><p style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><a name="m_8192583573359726082_m_1471916571654835246_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter__GoBack"></a></span><b style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,46,98)">Greg
Shatan<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">C: 917-816-6428<br>
S: gsshatan<br>Phone-to-Skype: </span><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:13.3333px">646-845-9428<br></span></font><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-indent:0in" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a></p><p style="font-size:12.8px;text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif"></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br></span><div><div class="gmail-m_8192583573359726082h5"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Rafik Dammak <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Hi Greg,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">After discussion within NCSG, I would like to share our response:</div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-size:12.8px"><span class="gmail-m_8192583573359726082m_1471916571654835246m_3491366725244325505m_7530818678417915756m_2266073356641167822gmail-im">- we cannot accept the current proposal.<br></span>- however, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel starting from Wednesday 1st March until Friday 10th March.</div><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-size:12.8px"><span class="gmail-m_8192583573359726082m_1471916571654835246m_3491366725244325505m_7530818678417915756m_2266073356641167822gmail-im"><br>Our proposal is:<br> * NCA is not removed from any part of the process<br> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.<br> * as many nominees as coming forward in a week.<br> * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two</span></div><div class="gmail_extra" style="font-size:12.8px"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-size:12.8px"> * a joint interview of the top 2 </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">before second round with the whole house.</span></font><span class="gmail-m_8192583573359726082m_1471916571654835246m_3491366725244325505m_7530818678417915756m_2266073356641167822gmail-im"><br> * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader against NOTA<br> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get our act together.<br> * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we get our act together.</span></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div>Best,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Rafik</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="gmail-m_8192583573359726082m_1471916571654835246h5">2017-02-20 14:12 GMT+09:00 Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="gmail-m_8192583573359726082m_1471916571654835246h5"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures previously circulated, I'm also attaching the following for consideration:</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between CSG and NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft process.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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).</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">A few thoughts and comments:</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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).</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different when it comes to voting.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thanks for reading,</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">B. Since we are doing this with very little time</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div><div class="gmail-m_8192583573359726082m_1471916571654835246m_3491366725244325505m_7530818678417915756m_2266073356641167822gmail-m_1487891392922888888gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"></p><div><p style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><a name="m_8192583573359726082_m_1471916571654835246_m_3491366725244325505_m_7530818678417915756_m_2266073356641167822_m_1487891392922888888_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter__GoBack"></a></span><b style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,46,98)">Greg
Shatan<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">C: <a href="tel:(917)%20816-6428" value="+19178166428" target="_blank">917-816-6428</a><br>
S: gsshatan<br>Phone-to-Skype: </span><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:13.3333px"><a href="tel:(646)%20845-9428" value="+16468459428" target="_blank">646-845-9428</a><br></span></font><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-indent:0in" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a></p><p style="font-size:12.8px;text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif"></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Greg Shatan</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span><br>Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM<br>Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board Selection Process<br>To: <a href="mailto:ncph-intersessional2017@icann.org" target="_blank">ncph-intersessional2017@icann.<wbr>org</a><br><br><br><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">A Google Docs version can be found here, where any suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but everyone has "edit" rights): <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">https://docs.google.c<wbr>om/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPp<wbr>nL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/e<wbr>dit?usp=sharing</a></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">We look forward to your thoughts.</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Thanks!</div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams)</div><span class="gmail-m_8192583573359726082m_1471916571654835246m_3491366725244325505m_7530818678417915756m_2266073356641167822gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><span class="gmail-m_8192583573359726082m_1471916571654835246m_3491366725244325505m_7530818678417915756m_2266073356641167822gmail-m_1487891392922888888gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><div class="gmail-m_8192583573359726082m_1471916571654835246m_3491366725244325505m_7530818678417915756m_2266073356641167822gmail-m_1487891392922888888gmail-m_6578881099406467091gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif"></p><div><p style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><a name="m_8192583573359726082_m_1471916571654835246_m_3491366725244325505_m_7530818678417915756_m_2266073356641167822_m_1487891392922888888_m_6578881099406467091_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter_UNIQUE_ID_SafeHtmlFilter__GoBack"></a></span><b style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,46,98)">Greg
Shatan<br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">C: <a href="tel:(917)%20816-6428" value="+19178166428" target="_blank">917-816-6428</a><br>
S: gsshatan<br>Phone-to-Skype: </span><font color="#000000" face="Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:13.3333px"><a href="tel:(646)%20845-9428" value="+16468459428" target="_blank">646-845-9428</a><br></span></font><a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;text-indent:0in" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</span></a></p><p style="font-size:12.8px;text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif"></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</font></span></font></span></div>
</div><br></div>
<br></div></div><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017@icann.org" target="_blank">Ncph-intersessional2017@icann.<wbr>org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/ncph-intersessional201<wbr>7</a><br>
<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>