Procedure: Appointment of NCPH ICANN Board member

[Akinremi Peter Taiwo]

Hi Farzaneh,

  Please can I get more clarification on the statement that says Candidates
shall disclose all sources of present and *future income*. Does it mean
that any candidate for board consideration should not engage in activities
that would bring personal income flow in the future, even if such
opportunities are yet to be visible to such candidate at the of board
consideration.

Regards.
Peter

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:47 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear David,
>
> The election formalizes the process. But consensus on one candidate has to
> be made beforehand.We don't want to hold an election on more than one
> candidate. I have heard it has been messy in the past when there were two
> candidates.
>
> The 60 percent of the affirmative vote of the house comes from a text in
> the ICANN Bylaws: 11.3(f) The GNSO shall nominate by written ballot or by
> action at a meeting individuals to fill Seats 13 and 14 on the Board. Each
> of the two voting Houses of the GNSO, as described in Section 11.3(h),
> shall make a nomination to fill one of two Board seats, as outlined below; *any
> such nomination must have affirmative votes compromising sixty percent
> (60%) of all the respective voting House members.*
>
> When the ICANN Bylaws says "voting  Houses of GNSO" they mean the
> councilors, as said in 11.3(H) and  I have pasted at the bottom of this
> email.
>
> The leadership term and internal procedures will be identified by us, we
> have to decide whether all the councilors would vote, some would vote, to
> make up of the 60% of the affirmative vote. So in the end, the selection
> will be really happening based on 60% of councilors vote and our internal
> procedures that do not really make NCSG a block.
>
> You say: "This document has huge changes to the internal operation of
> NCSG, and to the operation of the GNSO as a whole, " I have been asking
> those more experienced what changes it has that are so huge and why is it
> so bad to decide at the stakeholder group level on this issue since it has
> always been at NCSG level and GNSO councillors are NCSG councillors to GNSO
> and not constituency reps to GNSO.
>
> I'll take your suggestion about reverting to previous rule and ask NCSG
> PC. But I am not sure we ever had a cohesive approach for each election.Did
> we always vote on board seat 14 by both stakeholder groups?
>
> I need to talk about approval of this doc tomorrow with the CSG. NCSG PC
> approved it already. I have not heard any other veteran on this mailing
> list raising concerns.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ***
>
> 11.3.H
>
>
> (h) Except as otherwise required in these Bylaws, for voting purposes, the
> GNSO Council (see Section 11.3(a)) shall be organized into a bicameral
> House structure as described below:
>
> (i) the Contracted Parties House includes the Registries Stakeholder Group
> (three members), the Registrars Stakeholder Group (three members), and one
> voting member appointed by the ICANN Nominating Committee for a total of
> seven voting members; and
>
> (ii) the Non Contracted Parties House includes the Commercial Stakeholder
> Group (six members), the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (six members),
> and one voting member appointed by the ICANN Nominating Committee to that
> House for a total of thirteen voting members.
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 10:24 PM, David Cake <dave at davecake.net> wrote:
>
>> Issues to do with the inclusion of the NCA have been significantly
>> improved in this draft, and I thank our negotiating team for that.
>>
>> I find section 4 to be confusing. It mixes together elements of the new
>> procedure (which is that there must be a consensus candidate of both
>> houses) and the old (which is that councillors vote).
>>
>> If there is consensus, we do not not really need an election as such, and
>> the text about ‘representing at least 60% of house votes’ is confusing - in
>> the procedure as described, there are only two outcomes, less than 50% or
>> over 92% of house votes - but what a house vote is is never really
>> explained, but the over 60% part I assume references per councillor voting?
>> And the procedure for failure to get 100% consensus appears to simply be go
>> back to the start.
>>
>> The term leadership is also vague. In the previous procedure, this was a
>> vote of councillors, clearly. In this document, this has been replaced with
>> leadership, which I find very vague - who, exactly, is leadership?
>> Councillors? Councillors plus PC? Or are EC included? What would we do if,
>> for example, we had a situation where all councillors could agree on a
>> candidate but some EC members objected? These are primarily internal to
>> NCSG questions that need not be in this document - but if we go with this
>> document, we will have to document our internal decision making process
>> more, I think.
>>
>> And I repeat my previous objection that this procedure takes the idea of
>> NCSG acting as a single consensus block, which we only initially considered
>> as a tactical negotiating tactic, and institutionalises it. I understand
>> that we can do nothing to change the internal dynamics of the CSG, but
>> should we change ours to suit them?
>> This document has huge changes to the internal operation of NCSG, and to
>> the operation of the GNSO as a whole, and I think deserves further
>> discussion. I also don’t think we should allow the CSG leadership to write
>> their current internal dynamics into the rules, though of course we have to
>> accept them as a de facto reality.
>>
>> That said, I think its perfectly fine as an agreement between the two
>> constituencies as a basis for negotiations, and would happily accept it on
>> that basis. I’m just very very uncomfortable with it as a complete
>> replacement for the previous rules. Perhaps we can simply add on to the end
>> of this procedure that if a consensus candidate cannot be identified,
>> revert to the previous rules?
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>> > On 17 Jun 2018, at 7:19 am, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > <ICANN 61.revised. Board seat 14[1][1].docx_WUKedit - AF edits.docx>
>>
>>
>


-- 
*Akinremi Peter Taiwo*
[ West Africa Coordinator ]
African Civil Society on Information Society (*ACSIS*)
*Website: *www.acsis-scasi.org

*Chief E*xecutive Consultant.
[ Compsoftnet Enterprise ]
www.compsoftnet.com.ng
Nigeria

*T*echnical Consultant
[ RetailPoint ]
Lagos
Website: www.retailpos.com.ng

*Phone:* +2347-0638-30177, +2348-1874-76292
*twitter:* @compsoftnet
*Skype:* akinremi.peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180627/207b8887/attachment.htm>