Nomination period extended to Sunday (today) 23.59 PST

[Olivier Kouami]

I seconded Wisdom Donkor nomination. A great 🃏 !
Kudo Guy !
Olévié

Le dim. 31 mai 2020 à 23:19, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a écrit :

> hi,
>
> @Amr @Tapani to disclose I am not in the team of nit-pickers, just  the
> one of follow the rules and don't make them on fly :). I also find it funny
> to see my name mentioned several times , and even in scenario :D
>
> My first take of this confusing late workaround is that could have been
> prevented earlier. It is not a fault of candidates who declined on time.
> while the nomination happen during a defined period, I think encouraging
> more candidates doesn't need to wait for that period. We need
> competitive election and getting more candidates and that is such task
> happen prior. is it easy? of course not. I heard the comments during the
> meet the candidates call and I don't think I can agree with the arguments
> or explanation made there. At the end, those are elections and not
> appointments by acclamation. Members have the right to assess the
> candidates and make decision to choose them as representatives or not. also
> leadership means you have to accept those rules of the game. Yes  indeed,
> we are volunteers and  I can understand the reluctance to go through
> election but I also believe that in other spaces,  even in other
> organizations, volunteers go through similar process.
>
> We need people committed and ready to run, also understanding what it does
> mean in term of work and not taking that lightly. As an outgoing
> councillor, I have strong opinions about the role and responsibilities of
> councillor toward NCSG and council itself and so I want all candidates to
> be aware. We have 6 councillors but if everyone doesn't put his weight and
> work hard, it will be just putting burden in their colleagues. Councillors
> are representatives in council but also members our policy committee. they
> have also to work with their colleagues from other SC/C and be prepared and
> ready to discuss with them, make proposals and counter proposals,
> participating on drafting etc.
>
> While the extension seems the only solution at first sight, the discussion
> above showed there are others alternatives  and following the EC discussion
> none was explored (it looked like binary choice). That is of concern for me
> when we focus on only one proposal and I might have other concerns about
> how the EC managed the matter. Having been in NCSG EC and NCSG chair
> before, I know this is not pleasant situation but we do need to have a
> serious discussion.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le lun. 1 juin 2020 à 06:20, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> a
> écrit :
>
>> Hi Tapani,
>>
>> You’re actually half-way there in terms of what I thought might have been
>> a way forward on this. For clarity, I haven’t spoken about any of this to
>> Rafik, and as you said, I am aware that it’s very unlikely that he may want
>> to serve for a third-term…, but that isn’t what I had in mind.
>>
>> What I was thinking was that he may continue between now, and when a new
>> NCSG EC and Councilors are in place following the AGM in October. Once that
>> is done, he could resign, and allow the new NCSG EC to fill his seat as per
>> the NCSG Charter.
>>
>> This would allow the current election cycle to proceed as planned without
>> any unnecessary incident, and would also allow for the the empty seat to be
>> appropriately filled in October, once the new NCSG Chair is in place, and
>> when NPOC and NCUC confirm their own appointments to next year’s NCSG EC.
>>
>> I am also in favor of using clear and unambiguous procedures that are
>> already in place, particularly if their use is somewhat of a novel(ish)
>> precedent. The Temp Spec was one such solution, and this could be too.
>>
>> If you ask me for my personal insight, I believe it is unlikely that the
>> Council would reject this course of action. They may even find it as
>> interesting and novel as I (and perhaps you) do, especially if the plan to
>> have Rafik step down in October is explained to them. I suspect the Council
>> may very well vote unanimously on this (may even be placed on the Consent
>> Agenda), but even if that isn’t the case, I’m confident enough to guess
>> that a supermajority vote in favor of this may be reasonably expected.
>>
>> This would be an interesting exercise, which may raise awareness of an
>> existing procedure across the entire GNSO, not just the NCSG (I wonder how
>> many from other SGs are aware of this), it’d allow us to move forward
>> without the need to alter the election schedule or bend any rules, and
>> should be a satisfactory outcome to all parties involved. It delays
>> nothing, and creates no serious negative consequences that I can think of.
>>
>> Yes…, the NCSG had fewer candidates than it needed, but that is a fact.
>> No reason we need to find it embarrassing at all. We’re all volunteers
>> here. Fortunately, the drafters of the ICANN Bylaws and GNSO Operating
>> Procedures foresaw that issues like this (or even if not exactly like this
>> one), and had the good sense to put in some procedures to allow what I
>> believe is an elegant solution.
>>
>> Thanks for entertaining me on this. :-)
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> > On May 31, 2020, at 10:51 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
>> ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Amr, fellow nit-picker extraordinaire!
>> >
>> > On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 06:50:51PM +0000, Amr Elsadr
>> (aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA) wrote:
>> >
>> > [me]
>> >>> there's really no alternative if enough candidates aren't
>> >>> available during the election, but nonetheless it would also be at
>> >>> least slightly bending the rules.
>> >
>> >> That’s NOT true. There is an alternative, but you may just not be
>> >> aware of it.
>> >
>> > OK, I concede that of course there are theoretical alternatives, like
>> > dissolving NCSG on the spot, maybe just all members resigning at once
>> > and what not. But "really" above was meant to suggest there are no
>> > practical, realistic alternatives. And I was aware of the one you
>> > mention but didn't consider it realistic in the present situation.
>> >
>> >> I know you like to read up on procedural nuances and details. Why
>> >> not take a look at what the ICANN Bylaws and GNSO Operating
>> >> Procedures provide as an alternative under what they refer to as a
>> >> “Special Circumstance”? Specifically, [Article 11.3(b), paragraph 2
>> >> of the ICANN
>> >> Bylaws](
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11),
>> >> and section 2.1.2 of the [GNSO Operating
>> >> Procedures](
>> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-24oct19-en.pdf
>> ).
>> >> These at least provide an alternative course of action, which had it
>> >> been selected, could have led to a resolution of this situation
>> >> without creating the constitutional and procedural mess we
>> >> unnecessarily find ourselves in now.
>> >
>> > Those provide that NCSG could petition the council to allow its
>> > councillor to exceed term limit and serve a third consecutive term.
>> >
>> > In the present situation the only term-limited councillor is Rafik.
>> >
>> > So yes, one option would have been to ask Rafik to stay on and
>> > then petition the Council to accept a third term for him.
>> >
>> > But it was my understanding that Rafik has no desire to continue, and
>> > I don't think it would've been trivial to persuade the Council, with
>> > 75% supermajority in both houses, to go for it. I rather suspect they
>> > would at least have asked for a bit more of a search for a candidate
>> > along the lines of 2.1.1(b), even though 2.1.2 doesn't actually have
>> > require such.
>> >
>> > In any event it would've taken much longer time and been somewhat
>> > embarrassing to have the entire Council sort out our internal mess.
>> >
>> > Hardly easier or less messy than the alternatives EC did consider.
>> >
>> >> As I said on Friday’s “meet the candidates” call, our elected
>> >> representatives need to be fully versed in the bylaws and operating
>> >> procedures that govern the GNSO.
>> >
>> > Fortunately I'm not running for any position, nor intend to ever
>> > again, so I don't have to. Anyway I rather doubt all councillors
>> > (of any group) are as well versed in GNSO bylaws as you are. :-)
>> >
>> > But I was indeed aware of that Special Circumstances thing, even
>> > though I'd forgotten details like the supermajority percentages.
>> > (It came up when I drafted the procedures for handling those
>> > diversity rules in our elections. Unfortunately I didn't then
>> > think of the possiblity of not having enough candidates at all.)
>> >
>> >> The way I see it, the EC kinda worked outside of the election
>> >> schedule it itself developed and announced. This resulted in
>> >> confusion,
>> >
>> > Yes. Communication was not as good as it might've been.
>> >
>> >> and a misinformed notion that there was no alternative path out of
>> >> this situation, when there really was.
>> >
>> > There are always alternatives. The two EC considered were just the
>> > easiest, most practical ones, and IMHO the only really practical ones.
>> >
>> >>> So while neither option is really pretty, I don't see any serious
>> >>> legalistic argument against either, and I'm happy to let the EC decide
>> >>> which is best.
>> >
>> >> You may still hold this opinion after looking at the sections of the
>> >> bylaws and the OPs I pointed to above, but I’d be very interested in
>> >> hearing wether you do actually still believe this statement is true,
>> >> or wether you’ve changed your mind.
>> >
>> > I certainly haven't changed my mind about the above: both of those
>> > options are doable without bending any rules too much.
>> >
>> > Whether or not other alternatives would've been viable - still no, for
>> > reasons explained above, but there I might be more open to persuasion.
>> > Feel free to try. :-)
>> >
>> > (I can actually think of several additional alternatives myself, some
>> > even sort of within the realm of possibility, but none I would
>> > consider advocating.)
>> >
>> > --
>> > Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200531/b0da3ecf/attachment.htm>