[NCSG-EC] [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process

Wed Feb 22 04:27:18 EET 2017

Hi Matt,

thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this topic.
I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the process and
adjust the whole timeline.
how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for now. shall
we initiate a process to find other candidates? we don't have so much time
for a long nomination period.

I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press us but we
should stand and be clear about the aspects which are non-negotiable with
regard to the process.

Best,

Rafik

2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org>:

> Thanks Rafik
>
> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal with it and we are
> running out of time.
>
> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, which was not
> really discussed further.  Then we had some general discussion about the
> need to do something on the Board selection process.  People voiced their
> views on different aspects of the process and there was concern over the
> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others please jump in as I
> may have missed some important aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to
> continue in the role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG
> proposal for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There seemed to be
> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
>
> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a process and timeline for
> nominations and getting that announced, so at least the initial stages of
> the process are underway.
>
> Matthew
>
> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on board seat
> election.
> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what or not agreed on
> iceland on that regard from those who attended intersessional?
>
> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points such as having
> vote, NCA participation and so on.
>
> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far from our expectations.
> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it by end of this week
> but we do need to be ready.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process
> To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
> Cc:
>
> All,
>
> We probably need a different mailing list to finish working on the Board
> Seat selection process, and a small group to do it, but I'll start here,
> since I think this is the only active mailing list with both sides of the
> NCPH on it.
>
> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've already started the
> process without knowing what it is exactly, since we have now received
> nominations.
>
> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures previously circulated,
> I'm also attaching the following for consideration:
>
> 1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between CSG and NCSG
> representatives outlining a potential draft process.
> 2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a revised draft
> timeline and some relevant excerpts from Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
> 3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section 11.3(f), which covers
> the selection process for Seats 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the
> Bylaws), and Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section 11.3(f).
>
> A few thoughts and comments:
>
> A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go through a process
> that is contemplated to take 21 weeks (just to go through).  Talk about
> building the airplane in the air.
>
> B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible adjustments to the
> timeline, but did not come to any decisions.  It's not clear to me whether
> Staff is preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>
> C.  If any of our groups have not already done so, we should put out a
> call for any other nominations ASAP (though it would be nice to know the
> end of the nomination period).
>
> D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process and the NCPH
> bullet-points are significantly different when it comes to voting.
>
> E.  We should figure out how to get this process agreed as quickly as
> possible.  Given the unusual circumstances, we don't need to use this
> process as precedent for any future process.  We just need to get through
> this selection.  One approach is for NCSG to respond to the draft sent at
> the end of the Intersessional.  However, given the gap between that and the
> bullet-points, it might just be better to arrange a call/Adobe Connect
> session ASAP to move the ball forward.
>
> Thanks for reading,
>
> Greg
>
> P.S.  It's not all that important how we got here, but nonetheless, it
> should be noted that the GNSO Procedures were never updated from 2012, when
> the Bylaws deadline for naming the Director was changed from one month to
> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to being seated.  (The GNSO
> Procedures will need to be updated in any event, since the Bylaws
> references are now obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this error.
>
> B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>
>
>
>
>
> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
> S: gsshatan
> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board Selection Process
> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>
>
> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>
> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed interim Board
> Selection Process based closely on the Final Process adopted by the
> Contracted Parties House.  Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing
> changes from the CPH document.
>
> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any suggested changes can
> be added in "suggest" mode (but everyone has "edit" rights):
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPp
> nL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>
> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board Seat process and then
> revisit afterward before making it a permanent rather than "interim"
> process.
>
> This has not been reviewed by the membership of the IPC, BC and ISPCP, but
> we wanted to start the discussion on this basis, given the short amount of
> time we have for this year.
>
> We look forward to your thoughts.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams)
>
>
> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <%28917%29%20816-6428>
> S: gsshatan
> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <%28646%29%20845-9428>
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> --
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170222/89fa5386/attachment.htm>