Procedure: Appointment of NCPH ICANN Board member

[David Cake]

We are mixing two issues here - formal procedure in the bylaws, and practical negotiation procedure between the two SGs.

I think these rules confuse those two issues, and it should be clearer to separate them.

As far as practical negotiation procedure, I am fairly fine with the procedure as it goes.  I think the 60% rule is intended to create a situation where a successful candidate must have at least some cross-SG support, and if CSG always bind all their councillors, and NCSG also does so in response (which is the rational strategy), then practically the situation becomes as described.

And consensus of both groups is the ideal outcome.

But we rules that:
- do not confuse the internal processes of the SGs with the formal rules of the ballot
- cope better with failure to find consensus.


> On 27 Jun 2018, at 6:47 am, 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.

	We should not, indeed, be holding an election on more than one candidate if we want a good chance of a clear outcome. But we should not be setting the election rules themselves on that basis. The rules should allow for unpredictable and possibly messy results if we can’t get our processes together.


> 
> 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.

	Yes. And as the actual rules of the bylaws specify the voters as being the GNSO Councillors, we should not try to overrule or obscure that in our rules.

	I generally find the ‘election process’ part of the proposed procedure to be a bad idea. Rather, we should run the election itself the same way we previously have, with councillors as the voters, secure in the knowledge that if both SGs have consensus then the result will be entirely as predicted.

> 
> 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.

	When you say 'we have to decide whether all the councilors would vote’, are you proposing to change the voting rules in the bylaws, that say all councillors should have a vote, or are you talking about internal procedures only?
	And if we bind our councillors to vote the same way, then NCSG is a bloc, and if we do not bind them, the rules as written are at best aspirational.
> 
> 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.

	Its not bad to decide at the stakeholder group level. It is the best strategy if CSG do the same.
	But strategy is not the same as rules, and we should not confuse the two.

> 
> 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?

	We followed the rules, which is that we had a ballot of all 13 GNSO councillors. I believe that as far as the rules of the election go, that should not change. Part way through the election of 2014, after some failed election attempts, we made the decision to bind our councillors thus ensuring that only a consensus candidate of both SGs could succeed. We maintained that position in the election of 2017.

> 
> 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.

	I am surprised no one else has discussed it, perhaps they are busy.

I think at the moment, it is fine if it is intended purely as a documentation of an agreement between the two SGs on how to choose a board member. I think it accurately represents the agreed on understanding between the two SGs.

If it is, however, to be a formal procedure, it attempts to over rule the bylaws in an SG level document, which I think not only a bad idea but probably renders it invalid.

	David


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180627/4127afdc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180627/4127afdc/attachment.sig>