Procedure: Appointment of NCPH ICANN Board member

[caleb olumuyiwa]

Hello Peter,
I don't think the statement meant that you should not hold any regular day
job. We all volunteer for ICANN multistakeholder bottom up process.
After all, the statements emphasize is "*DECLARE*".

Regards,

Caleb



On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 03:52 Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20180627/39bb50d6/attachment.htm>