Procedure: Appointment of NCPH ICANN Board member

[Akinremi Peter Taiwo]

Noted Tapani.

Regards.

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
> It simply means one has to declare whatever future income is already
> known (planned) at the time. Of course we cannot require people to
> declare anything unforeseen or commit to avoiding any presently
> unplanned for changes in their circumstances.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Jun 27 11:00, Akinremi Peter Taiwo (compsoftnet at GMAIL.COM) wrote:
> >
> > Hi Caleb,
> >
> >   Sure Caleb. But my point is what if the candidate can't declare the
> > future income as at the present. And later found ways fro income flow.
> > Won't that be taken against the candidate in future debate.
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 10:50 AM, caleb olumuyiwa <muyiwacaleb at gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > *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
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>



-- 
*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/20180627/8ae0dc96/attachment.htm>