From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Wed May 6 18:51:37 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Wed, 6 May 2020 11:51:37 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Primer for tomorrow's meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, A quick update: the fees for our current contract with Wapix would go from 428/m to 468/m with the addition of hosting to the package. The transition itself would not cost us dev time, but given the outdated character of it by now, there would be work to be done on it later on (which means dev time, but we can discuss that later) So we would go from 44 EUR/m to 40 USD/m for hosting, or a saving of about 7 EUR/7.5 USD per month at going rates. I have yet to figure out contractual matters with Robhost, and I'll be back to you when I do. Have a nice day, On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 2:25 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all > > A short primer for tomorrow, as far as my agenda point is concerned: > > Updates which are deemed critical to our data systems cannot be performed > by Wapix given that we are currently hosted with a different hosting > provider, Robhost, based in Germany. There are technical reasons for that, > which can be boiled down to the fact that our hosting provider does not > want to give the level of access required to Wapix. This is understandable, > but it comes in the way of doing the updates properly. > > I do not know much as to why we came to be hosted by Robhost. In any case, > it costs us 44 EUR/month for a 12 month period, so over 500 EUR or USD/y. > Stephanie, I believe you are currently paying for it. > > This is probably a matter that should have been discussed this summer in > Morocco, but to be honest I was not aware that we had a separate hosting > and who it was. I discovered it along the way. > > I would thus suggest that we switch over to Wapix for hosting, in addition > to management. Given that they already charge us for remote access anyway, > being hosted by them would not cost us anything more as far as monthly fees > are concerned, and would save us money during development time as they > would not need to deal with the remote access part, making their work > marginally quicker. However I believe it would cost us a few hours in dev > time. > > Also, having things centralized with Wapix is a more sustainable solution > long term. > > If I have your agreement on the principle of this, I will see with Josh > how much it would cost us as a whole (as I said, probably a few hrs of the > dev time we have already paid for), and what is the process for terminating > with Robhost. Once things are set, I would be back to you all with the > figures for final approval. > > Have a nice day, > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Sat May 9 18:46:49 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 11:46:49 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Termination with our current host, and GDPR issues re transfer Message-ID: Hi all So it is possible to terminate with Robhost. The next bill (for 12 months) is due on June 17th. The ToS posted on their wesbite mention that we can terminate by the end of the ongoing billing term, subject to notice period (unspecified). Now presuming German law governs, that would be six weeks. Now if you count, that means we'd be too late already. In addition, Tapani has raised an issue regarding the GDPR-compliant character of such a Germany-US data transfer. After a few hours (re)reading the GDPR and looking into this, it appears to me that we NCSG as the 'controller' have to bind ourselves to provide our (EU, at least) members with their GDPR rights, wherever the data may be. Given that we can do that, there is no requirement for individualized consent by each member. That brings up another issue which is that of Wapix as a processor (i.e. we call the shots and they execute). They have been, and will continue to be. Yet they do have to abide by the GDPR when it comes to their role as a processor of personal data of EU persons. In turn, as controllers, we have to make sure they do. I do not know what their stance is when it comes to GDPR compliance. Couldnt find anything on their website; in any case I have inquired with them and they usually come back quickly. So here's my plan: -Ensure that everything is GDPR-kosher on Wapix's side -Attempt to negotiate a termination with Robhost; hopefully we manage to reach an alternative solution which does not involve paying a full 12 months -Make a post on the list regarding the transfer, reminding our members of 1) who is controller, who is processor, and what kind of processing is being done, for what purposes, etc. 2) reminding them of their rights and 3) that the transfer will have no effect on these processings and purposes, nor on their rights, and so that we will abide with any GDPR-bound request by any member (and, for what it's worth, with any DPA request, although honestly I hope we never get there. But who knows!) Let me know of any comments, suggestions, issues, etc. And if you care enough to have a more detailed legal reasoning as to what our obligations are I'll happily provide. Have a nice day, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca Sat May 9 19:04:02 2020 From: stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 12:04:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Fwd: Re: Termination with our current host, and GDPR issues re transfer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b70c2cb-0e93-c990-05c0-2ed0429958cf@digitaldiscretion.ca> -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] Termination with our current host, and GDPR issues re transfer Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 12:00:57 -0400 From: Stephanie Perrin To: ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is I am so sorry we delayed on this, Raphael!? My fault. I rather doubt that a Colorado IT firm is GDPR compliant.? I also rather doubt that it applies to NCSG as we are an informal association.? Not an NGO.? So more like a? bowling league or a bridge club (deliberately selecting 50's era clubs).? But if you think belonging to NCSG is a covered activity, fire away, I am interested in the legal reasoning.? (this opinion of course by means reflects my concerns about our privacy policies, as yet not form On 2020-05-09 11:46 a.m., Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC wrote: > Hi all > > So it is possible to terminate with Robhost. The next bill (for 12 > months) is due on June 17th. The ToS posted on their wesbite?mention > that we can terminate by the end of the ongoing billing term, subject > to notice period (unspecified). Now presuming German law governs, that > would be six weeks. Now if you count, that means we'd be too late already. > > In addition, Tapani has raised an issue regarding the GDPR-compliant > character of such a Germany-US data transfer. After a few hours > (re)reading the GDPR and looking into this, it appears to me that we > NCSG as the 'controller' have to bind ourselves to provide?our (EU, at > least) members with their GDPR rights, wherever the data may be. Given > that we can do that, there is no requirement for individualized > consent by each member. > > That brings up another issue which is that of Wapix as a processor > (i.e. we call the shots and they execute). They have been, and will > continue to be. Yet they do have to abide by the GDPR when it comes to > their role as a processor of personal data of EU?persons. In turn, as > controllers, we have to make sure they do. I do not know what their > stance is when it comes to GDPR compliance. Couldnt?find anything on > their website; in any case I have inquired with them and they usually > come back quickly. > > So here's my plan: > > -Ensure that everything is GDPR-kosher on Wapix's side > > -Attempt to negotiate a termination with?Robhost; hopefully we manage > to reach an alternative solution which does not involve paying a full > 12 months > > -Make a post on the list regarding the transfer, reminding our members > of 1) who is controller, who is processor, and what kind of processing > is being done, for what purposes, etc. 2) reminding them of their > rights and 3) that the transfer will have no effect on these > processings and purposes, nor on their rights, and so that we will > abide with any GDPR-bound request by any member (and, for what it's > worth, with any DPA request, although honestly I hope we never get > there. But who knows!) > > > Let me know of any comments, suggestions, issues, etc. And if you care > enough to have a more detailed legal reasoning as to what our > obligations are I'll happily provide. > > Have a nice day, > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Sat May 9 19:45:37 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 12:45:37 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Fwd: Re: Termination with our current host, and GDPR issues re transfer In-Reply-To: <7b70c2cb-0e93-c990-05c0-2ed0429958cf@digitaldiscretion.ca> References: <7b70c2cb-0e93-c990-05c0-2ed0429958cf@digitaldiscretion.ca> Message-ID: Hi Steph To be more specific (and succinct), I don't read us in any of the exceptions of Art 2.2. Hence what we do must be within the material scope; being unincorporated or otherwise "informal" does appear to change anything to me. And while the bowling league might arguably fall within the household exception, that exception is construed quite strictly by the CJEU and I honestly don't think we qualify. Mostly based on the fact that we are a "we" (albeit informal) and not just one guy keeping tabs on the bowling league folks in an excel sheet. As for Wapix I'd be surprised, but what I want to make sure of is that they do not "do" anything with the data on their own. If they simply take our orders, then they are confined to the role of processor. As long as Wapix does not plan or does not seek to interpose anything between the commitments we take and what they themselves do, then I think they do not have to be "compliant." But who knows - they might have some policy lying somewhere that says they will comply anyway. They might have European customers. To be clear, I don't think their compliance status matters so much, to the extent that they don't anything else with the data besides what we ask them to do for *our *purposes. Have a nice day, On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:04 PM Stephanie Perrin via NCSG-EC < ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] Termination with our current host, and GDPR issues > re transfer > Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 12:00:57 -0400 > From: Stephanie Perrin > > To: ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is > > I am so sorry we delayed on this, Raphael! My fault. > > I rather doubt that a Colorado IT firm is GDPR compliant. I also rather > doubt that it applies to NCSG as we are an informal association. Not an > NGO. So more like a bowling league or a bridge club (deliberately > selecting 50's era clubs). But if you think belonging to NCSG is a covered > activity, fire away, I am interested in the legal reasoning. (this opinion > of course by means reflects my concerns about our privacy policies, as yet > not form > On 2020-05-09 11:46 a.m., Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC wrote: > > Hi all > > So it is possible to terminate with Robhost. The next bill (for 12 months) > is due on June 17th. The ToS posted on their wesbite mention that we can > terminate by the end of the ongoing billing term, subject to notice period > (unspecified). Now presuming German law governs, that would be six weeks. > Now if you count, that means we'd be too late already. > > In addition, Tapani has raised an issue regarding the GDPR-compliant > character of such a Germany-US data transfer. After a few hours (re)reading > the GDPR and looking into this, it appears to me that we NCSG as the > 'controller' have to bind ourselves to provide our (EU, at least) members > with their GDPR rights, wherever the data may be. Given that we can do > that, there is no requirement for individualized consent by each member. > > That brings up another issue which is that of Wapix as a processor (i.e. > we call the shots and they execute). They have been, and will continue to > be. Yet they do have to abide by the GDPR when it comes to their role as a > processor of personal data of EU persons. In turn, as controllers, we have > to make sure they do. I do not know what their stance is when it comes to > GDPR compliance. Couldnt find anything on their website; in any case I have > inquired with them and they usually come back quickly. > > So here's my plan: > > -Ensure that everything is GDPR-kosher on Wapix's side > > -Attempt to negotiate a termination with Robhost; hopefully we manage to > reach an alternative solution which does not involve paying a full 12 months > > -Make a post on the list regarding the transfer, reminding our members of > 1) who is controller, who is processor, and what kind of processing is > being done, for what purposes, etc. 2) reminding them of their rights and > 3) that the transfer will have no effect on these processings and purposes, > nor on their rights, and so that we will abide with any GDPR-bound request > by any member (and, for what it's worth, with any DPA request, although > honestly I hope we never get there. But who knows!) > > > Let me know of any comments, suggestions, issues, etc. And if you care > enough to have a more detailed legal reasoning as to what our obligations > are I'll happily provide. > > Have a nice day, > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing listNCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Thu May 14 05:25:42 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 22:25:42 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Fwd: Re: Termination with our current host, and GDPR issues re transfer In-Reply-To: References: <7b70c2cb-0e93-c990-05c0-2ed0429958cf@digitaldiscretion.ca> Message-ID: Hi all I've gotten a reply from Josh, I'll just have to look into it a bit more. I was planning to do that yesterday but things have been pretty hectic at home. I should be back to you tomorrow with a clearer course of action. Have a nice evening, On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:45 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Steph > > To be more specific (and succinct), I don't read us in any of the > exceptions of Art 2.2. Hence what we do must be within the material scope; > being unincorporated or otherwise "informal" does appear to change anything > to me. And while the bowling league might arguably fall within the > household exception, that exception is construed quite strictly by the CJEU > and I honestly don't think we qualify. Mostly based on the fact that we are > a "we" (albeit informal) and not just one guy keeping tabs on the bowling > league folks in an excel sheet. > > As for Wapix I'd be surprised, but what I want to make sure of is that > they do not "do" anything with the data on their own. If they simply take > our orders, then they are confined to the role of processor. As long as > Wapix does not plan or does not seek to interpose anything between the > commitments we take and what they themselves do, then I think they do not > have to be "compliant." But who knows - they might have some policy lying > somewhere that says they will comply anyway. They might have European > customers. > > To be clear, I don't think their compliance status matters so much, to the > extent that they don't anything else with the data besides what we ask them > to do for *our *purposes. > > Have a nice day, > > > > On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:04 PM Stephanie Perrin via NCSG-EC < > ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] Termination with our current host, and GDPR >> issues re transfer >> Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 12:00:57 -0400 >> From: Stephanie Perrin >> >> To: ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is >> >> I am so sorry we delayed on this, Raphael! My fault. >> >> I rather doubt that a Colorado IT firm is GDPR compliant. I also rather >> doubt that it applies to NCSG as we are an informal association. Not an >> NGO. So more like a bowling league or a bridge club (deliberately >> selecting 50's era clubs). But if you think belonging to NCSG is a covered >> activity, fire away, I am interested in the legal reasoning. (this opinion >> of course by means reflects my concerns about our privacy policies, as yet >> not form >> On 2020-05-09 11:46 a.m., Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC wrote: >> >> Hi all >> >> So it is possible to terminate with Robhost. The next bill (for 12 >> months) is due on June 17th. The ToS posted on their wesbite mention that >> we can terminate by the end of the ongoing billing term, subject to notice >> period (unspecified). Now presuming German law governs, that would be six >> weeks. Now if you count, that means we'd be too late already. >> >> In addition, Tapani has raised an issue regarding the GDPR-compliant >> character of such a Germany-US data transfer. After a few hours (re)reading >> the GDPR and looking into this, it appears to me that we NCSG as the >> 'controller' have to bind ourselves to provide our (EU, at least) members >> with their GDPR rights, wherever the data may be. Given that we can do >> that, there is no requirement for individualized consent by each member. >> >> That brings up another issue which is that of Wapix as a processor (i.e. >> we call the shots and they execute). They have been, and will continue to >> be. Yet they do have to abide by the GDPR when it comes to their role as a >> processor of personal data of EU persons. In turn, as controllers, we have >> to make sure they do. I do not know what their stance is when it comes to >> GDPR compliance. Couldnt find anything on their website; in any case I have >> inquired with them and they usually come back quickly. >> >> So here's my plan: >> >> -Ensure that everything is GDPR-kosher on Wapix's side >> >> -Attempt to negotiate a termination with Robhost; hopefully we manage to >> reach an alternative solution which does not involve paying a full 12 months >> >> -Make a post on the list regarding the transfer, reminding our members of >> 1) who is controller, who is processor, and what kind of processing is >> being done, for what purposes, etc. 2) reminding them of their rights and >> 3) that the transfer will have no effect on these processings and purposes, >> nor on their rights, and so that we will abide with any GDPR-bound request >> by any member (and, for what it's worth, with any DPA request, although >> honestly I hope we never get there. But who knows!) >> >> >> Let me know of any comments, suggestions, issues, etc. And if you care >> enough to have a more detailed legal reasoning as to what our obligations >> are I'll happily provide. >> >> Have a nice day, >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing listNCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Fri May 15 02:15:58 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 19:15:58 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Fwd: Re: Termination with our current host, and GDPR issues re transfer In-Reply-To: References: <7b70c2cb-0e93-c990-05c0-2ed0429958cf@digitaldiscretion.ca> Message-ID: Hi all So it turns out that the hosting provider used by Wapix (Linode LLC) is GDPR compliant, at least to the extent that they are part of Privacy Shield. I have plenty of reservations about the scheme from an academic perspective, but as far as positive law goes I guess that still flies. So if I don't have any further comments/oppositions within the next 24h I will reach out tomorrow to Robhost to request the termination. Have a nice evening, On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:25 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all > > I've gotten a reply from Josh, I'll just have to look into it a bit more. > I was planning to do that yesterday but things have been pretty hectic at > home. I should be back to you tomorrow with a clearer course of action. > > Have a nice evening, > > On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:45 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < > rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Steph >> >> To be more specific (and succinct), I don't read us in any of the >> exceptions of Art 2.2. Hence what we do must be within the material scope; >> being unincorporated or otherwise "informal" does appear to change anything >> to me. And while the bowling league might arguably fall within the >> household exception, that exception is construed quite strictly by the CJEU >> and I honestly don't think we qualify. Mostly based on the fact that we are >> a "we" (albeit informal) and not just one guy keeping tabs on the bowling >> league folks in an excel sheet. >> >> As for Wapix I'd be surprised, but what I want to make sure of is that >> they do not "do" anything with the data on their own. If they simply take >> our orders, then they are confined to the role of processor. As long as >> Wapix does not plan or does not seek to interpose anything between the >> commitments we take and what they themselves do, then I think they do not >> have to be "compliant." But who knows - they might have some policy lying >> somewhere that says they will comply anyway. They might have European >> customers. >> >> To be clear, I don't think their compliance status matters so much, to >> the extent that they don't anything else with the data besides what we ask >> them to do for *our *purposes. >> >> Have a nice day, >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:04 PM Stephanie Perrin via NCSG-EC < >> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] Termination with our current host, and GDPR >>> issues re transfer >>> Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 12:00:57 -0400 >>> From: Stephanie Perrin >>> >>> To: ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is >>> >>> I am so sorry we delayed on this, Raphael! My fault. >>> >>> I rather doubt that a Colorado IT firm is GDPR compliant. I also rather >>> doubt that it applies to NCSG as we are an informal association. Not an >>> NGO. So more like a bowling league or a bridge club (deliberately >>> selecting 50's era clubs). But if you think belonging to NCSG is a covered >>> activity, fire away, I am interested in the legal reasoning. (this opinion >>> of course by means reflects my concerns about our privacy policies, as yet >>> not form >>> On 2020-05-09 11:46 a.m., Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC wrote: >>> >>> Hi all >>> >>> So it is possible to terminate with Robhost. The next bill (for 12 >>> months) is due on June 17th. The ToS posted on their wesbite mention that >>> we can terminate by the end of the ongoing billing term, subject to notice >>> period (unspecified). Now presuming German law governs, that would be six >>> weeks. Now if you count, that means we'd be too late already. >>> >>> In addition, Tapani has raised an issue regarding the GDPR-compliant >>> character of such a Germany-US data transfer. After a few hours (re)reading >>> the GDPR and looking into this, it appears to me that we NCSG as the >>> 'controller' have to bind ourselves to provide our (EU, at least) members >>> with their GDPR rights, wherever the data may be. Given that we can do >>> that, there is no requirement for individualized consent by each member. >>> >>> That brings up another issue which is that of Wapix as a processor (i.e. >>> we call the shots and they execute). They have been, and will continue to >>> be. Yet they do have to abide by the GDPR when it comes to their role as a >>> processor of personal data of EU persons. In turn, as controllers, we have >>> to make sure they do. I do not know what their stance is when it comes to >>> GDPR compliance. Couldnt find anything on their website; in any case I have >>> inquired with them and they usually come back quickly. >>> >>> So here's my plan: >>> >>> -Ensure that everything is GDPR-kosher on Wapix's side >>> >>> -Attempt to negotiate a termination with Robhost; hopefully we manage to >>> reach an alternative solution which does not involve paying a full 12 months >>> >>> -Make a post on the list regarding the transfer, reminding our members >>> of 1) who is controller, who is processor, and what kind of processing is >>> being done, for what purposes, etc. 2) reminding them of their rights and >>> 3) that the transfer will have no effect on these processings and purposes, >>> nor on their rights, and so that we will abide with any GDPR-bound request >>> by any member (and, for what it's worth, with any DPA request, although >>> honestly I hope we never get there. But who knows!) >>> >>> >>> Let me know of any comments, suggestions, issues, etc. And if you care >>> enough to have a more detailed legal reasoning as to what our obligations >>> are I'll happily provide. >>> >>> Have a nice day, >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing listNCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Mon May 18 20:23:42 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 13:23:42 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Fwd: Re: Termination with our current host, and GDPR issues re transfer In-Reply-To: References: <7b70c2cb-0e93-c990-05c0-2ed0429958cf@digitaldiscretion.ca> Message-ID: Hi all So things are taken care of with Robhost without any issues. I'll be in touch with Josh for the logistics of the transfer and keep you in the loop. Best, On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 7:15 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all > > So it turns out that the hosting provider used by Wapix (Linode LLC) is > GDPR compliant, at least to the extent that they are part of Privacy > Shield. I have plenty of reservations about the scheme from an academic > perspective, but as far as positive law goes I guess that still flies. > > So if I don't have any further comments/oppositions within the next 24h I > will reach out tomorrow to Robhost to request the termination. > > Have a nice evening, > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:25 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < > rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all >> >> I've gotten a reply from Josh, I'll just have to look into it a bit more. >> I was planning to do that yesterday but things have been pretty hectic at >> home. I should be back to you tomorrow with a clearer course of action. >> >> Have a nice evening, >> >> On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:45 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < >> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Steph >>> >>> To be more specific (and succinct), I don't read us in any of the >>> exceptions of Art 2.2. Hence what we do must be within the material scope; >>> being unincorporated or otherwise "informal" does appear to change anything >>> to me. And while the bowling league might arguably fall within the >>> household exception, that exception is construed quite strictly by the CJEU >>> and I honestly don't think we qualify. Mostly based on the fact that we are >>> a "we" (albeit informal) and not just one guy keeping tabs on the bowling >>> league folks in an excel sheet. >>> >>> As for Wapix I'd be surprised, but what I want to make sure of is that >>> they do not "do" anything with the data on their own. If they simply take >>> our orders, then they are confined to the role of processor. As long as >>> Wapix does not plan or does not seek to interpose anything between the >>> commitments we take and what they themselves do, then I think they do not >>> have to be "compliant." But who knows - they might have some policy lying >>> somewhere that says they will comply anyway. They might have European >>> customers. >>> >>> To be clear, I don't think their compliance status matters so much, to >>> the extent that they don't anything else with the data besides what we ask >>> them to do for *our *purposes. >>> >>> Have a nice day, >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:04 PM Stephanie Perrin via NCSG-EC < >>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] Termination with our current host, and GDPR >>>> issues re transfer >>>> Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 12:00:57 -0400 >>>> From: Stephanie Perrin >>>> >>>> To: ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is >>>> >>>> I am so sorry we delayed on this, Raphael! My fault. >>>> >>>> I rather doubt that a Colorado IT firm is GDPR compliant. I also >>>> rather doubt that it applies to NCSG as we are an informal association. >>>> Not an NGO. So more like a bowling league or a bridge club (deliberately >>>> selecting 50's era clubs). But if you think belonging to NCSG is a covered >>>> activity, fire away, I am interested in the legal reasoning. (this opinion >>>> of course by means reflects my concerns about our privacy policies, as yet >>>> not form >>>> On 2020-05-09 11:46 a.m., Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all >>>> >>>> So it is possible to terminate with Robhost. The next bill (for 12 >>>> months) is due on June 17th. The ToS posted on their wesbite mention that >>>> we can terminate by the end of the ongoing billing term, subject to notice >>>> period (unspecified). Now presuming German law governs, that would be six >>>> weeks. Now if you count, that means we'd be too late already. >>>> >>>> In addition, Tapani has raised an issue regarding the GDPR-compliant >>>> character of such a Germany-US data transfer. After a few hours (re)reading >>>> the GDPR and looking into this, it appears to me that we NCSG as the >>>> 'controller' have to bind ourselves to provide our (EU, at least) members >>>> with their GDPR rights, wherever the data may be. Given that we can do >>>> that, there is no requirement for individualized consent by each member. >>>> >>>> That brings up another issue which is that of Wapix as a processor >>>> (i.e. we call the shots and they execute). They have been, and will >>>> continue to be. Yet they do have to abide by the GDPR when it comes to >>>> their role as a processor of personal data of EU persons. In turn, as >>>> controllers, we have to make sure they do. I do not know what their stance >>>> is when it comes to GDPR compliance. Couldnt find anything on their >>>> website; in any case I have inquired with them and they usually come back >>>> quickly. >>>> >>>> So here's my plan: >>>> >>>> -Ensure that everything is GDPR-kosher on Wapix's side >>>> >>>> -Attempt to negotiate a termination with Robhost; hopefully we manage >>>> to reach an alternative solution which does not involve paying a full 12 >>>> months >>>> >>>> -Make a post on the list regarding the transfer, reminding our members >>>> of 1) who is controller, who is processor, and what kind of processing is >>>> being done, for what purposes, etc. 2) reminding them of their rights and >>>> 3) that the transfer will have no effect on these processings and purposes, >>>> nor on their rights, and so that we will abide with any GDPR-bound request >>>> by any member (and, for what it's worth, with any DPA request, although >>>> honestly I hope we never get there. But who knows!) >>>> >>>> >>>> Let me know of any comments, suggestions, issues, etc. And if you care >>>> enough to have a more detailed legal reasoning as to what our obligations >>>> are I'll happily provide. >>>> >>>> Have a nice day, >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-EC mailing listNCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca Tue May 19 03:30:29 2020 From: stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca (Stephanie E Perrin) Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 20:30:29 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Fwd: Re: Termination with our current host, and GDPR issues re transfer In-Reply-To: References: <7b70c2cb-0e93-c990-05c0-2ed0429958cf@digitaldiscretion.ca> Message-ID: Wonderful, and thanks so much for doing this Raphael! Stephanie On 2020-05-18 1:23 p.m., Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix wrote: > Hi all > > So things are taken care of with Robhost without any issues. I'll be > in touch with Josh for the logistics of the transfer and keep you in > the loop. > > Best, > > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 7:15 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix > > > wrote: > > Hi all > > So it turns out that the hosting provider used by Wapix (Linode > LLC) is GDPR compliant, at least to the extent that they are part > of Privacy Shield. I have plenty of reservations about the scheme > from an academic perspective, but as far as positive law goes I > guess that still flies. > > So if I don't have any further comments/oppositions within the > next 24h I will reach out tomorrow to Robhost to request the > termination. > > Have a nice evening, > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 10:25 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix > > wrote: > > Hi all > > I've gotten a reply from Josh, I'll just have to look into it > a bit more. I was planning to do that yesterday but things > have been pretty hectic at home. I should be back to you > tomorrow with a clearer course of action. > > Have a nice evening, > > On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:45 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix > > wrote: > > Hi Steph > > To be more specific (and succinct), I don't read us in any > of the exceptions of Art 2.2. Hence what we do must be > within the material scope; being unincorporated or > otherwise "informal" does appear to change anything to me. > And while the bowling league might arguably fall within > the household exception, that exception is construed quite > strictly by the CJEU and I honestly don't think we > qualify. Mostly based on the fact that we are a "we" > (albeit informal) and not just one guy keeping tabs on the > bowling league folks in an excel sheet. > > As for Wapix I'd be surprised, but what I want to make > sure of is that they do not "do" anything with the data on > their own. If they simply take our orders, then they are > confined to the role of processor. As long as Wapix does > not plan or does not seek to interpose anything between > the commitments we take and what they themselves do, then > I think they do not have to be "compliant." But who knows > - they might have some policy lying somewhere that says > they will comply anyway. They might have European customers. > > To be clear, I don't think their compliance status matters > so much, to the extent that they don't anything else with > the data besides what we ask them to do for /our /purposes. > > Have a nice day, > > > > On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:04 PM Stephanie Perrin via > NCSG-EC > wrote: > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] Termination with our current > host, and GDPR issues re transfer > Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 12:00:57 -0400 > From: Stephanie Perrin > > > To: ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is > > > > I am so sorry we delayed on this, Raphael! My fault. > > I rather doubt that a Colorado IT firm is GDPR > compliant.? I also rather doubt that it applies to > NCSG as we are an informal association.? Not an NGO.? > So more like a bowling league or a bridge club > (deliberately selecting 50's era clubs). But if you > think belonging to NCSG is a covered activity, fire > away, I am interested in the legal reasoning.? (this > opinion of course by means reflects my concerns about > our privacy policies, as yet not form > > On 2020-05-09 11:46 a.m., Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix > via NCSG-EC wrote: >> Hi all >> >> So it is possible to terminate with Robhost. The next >> bill (for 12 months) is due on June 17th. The ToS >> posted on their wesbite?mention that we can terminate >> by the end of the ongoing billing term, subject to >> notice period (unspecified). Now presuming German law >> governs, that would be six weeks. Now if you count, >> that means we'd be too late already. >> >> In addition, Tapani has raised an issue regarding the >> GDPR-compliant character of such a Germany-US data >> transfer. After a few hours (re)reading the GDPR and >> looking into this, it appears to me that we NCSG as >> the 'controller' have to bind ourselves to >> provide?our (EU, at least) members with their GDPR >> rights, wherever the data may be. Given that we can >> do that, there is no requirement for individualized >> consent by each member. >> >> That brings up another issue which is that of Wapix >> as a processor (i.e. we call the shots and they >> execute). They have been, and will continue to be. >> Yet they do have to abide by the GDPR when it comes >> to their role as a processor of personal data of >> EU?persons. In turn, as controllers, we have to make >> sure they do. I do not know what their stance is when >> it comes to GDPR compliance. Couldnt?find anything on >> their website; in any case I have inquired with them >> and they usually come back quickly. >> >> So here's my plan: >> >> -Ensure that everything is GDPR-kosher on Wapix's side >> >> -Attempt to negotiate a termination with?Robhost; >> hopefully we manage to reach an alternative solution >> which does not involve paying a full 12 months >> >> -Make a post on the list regarding the transfer, >> reminding our members of 1) who is controller, who is >> processor, and what kind of processing is being done, >> for what purposes, etc. 2) reminding them of their >> rights and 3) that the transfer will have no effect >> on these processings and purposes, nor on their >> rights, and so that we will abide with any GDPR-bound >> request by any member (and, for what it's worth, with >> any DPA request, although honestly I hope we never >> get there. But who knows!) >> >> >> Let me know of any comments, suggestions, issues, >> etc. And if you care enough to have a more detailed >> legal reasoning as to what our obligations are I'll >> happily provide. >> >> Have a nice day, >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Tue May 26 21:21:02 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 14:21:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Data transfer schedule/down time Message-ID: Hi all, The transatlantic voyage of our membership data is scheduled for "tomorrow night," that is sometime between 10pm UTC on 27/05 and 4am UCT on 28/05. There will most likely be disruptions to our various services during that time, in case any of you feel like commenting on membership applications. Have a nice day, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Wed May 27 03:06:36 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 20:06:36 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Deceased member (David Vyorst) Message-ID: Hi all It seems that David Vyorst, who passed away in 2017, is still listed as a member (individual in NPOC?+NCSG). Farzaneh notified me. Do we have a "process" for that? Have a nice day, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Wed May 27 13:24:52 2020 From: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 10:24:52 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-EC] [Ext] Deceased member (David Vyorst) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4242486A-DECB-40DB-823A-0A2A44536572@icann.org> Hi Raphael, Thank you for your email. We ended his membership on March 13, 2019. Please see the link to the page on the database: https://members.ncsg.is/civicrm/contact/view?reset=1&cid=2344 It?s strange he is still listed on the NCSG membership page. Might we bring this up with Wapix, as I reckon it has something to do with the way the data is replaced when there is a change in status? Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: +44 7846 471777 From: NCSG-EC on behalf of NCSG EC Reply to: Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix Date: Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 01:12 To: NCSG EC Subject: [Ext] [NCSG-EC] Deceased member (David Vyorst) Hi all It seems that David Vyorst, who passed away in 2017, is still listed as a member (individual in NPOC?+NCSG). Farzaneh notified me. Do we have a "process" for that? Have a nice day, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Wed May 27 13:27:14 2020 From: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 10:27:14 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-EC] [Ext] Deceased member (David Vyorst) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0AB49AAD-6183-4014-9653-02EA807064AF@icann.org> Hi Raphael, Thank you for your email. We ended his membership on March 13, 2018. Please see the link to the page on the database: https://members.ncsg.is/civicrm/contact/view?reset=1&cid=2344[members.ncsg.is] It?s strange he is still listed on the NCSG membership page. Might we bring this up with Wapix, as I reckon it has something to do with the way the data is replaced when there is a change in status? Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: +44 7846 471777 From: NCSG-EC on behalf of NCSG EC Reply to: Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix Date: Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 01:12 To: NCSG EC Subject: [Ext] [NCSG-EC] Deceased member (David Vyorst) Hi all It seems that David Vyorst, who passed away in 2017, is still listed as a member (individual in NPOC?+NCSG). Farzaneh notified me. Do we have a "process" for that? Have a nice day, -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Wed May 27 15:53:18 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 08:53:18 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] [Ext] Deceased member (David Vyorst) In-Reply-To: <0AB49AAD-6183-4014-9653-02EA807064AF@icann.org> References: <0AB49AAD-6183-4014-9653-02EA807064AF@icann.org> Message-ID: Sure I'll add that to the todo list On Wed, May 27, 2020, 06:27 Maryam Bakoshi wrote: > Hi Raphael, > > > > Thank you for your email. We ended his membership on * March 13, 2018*. > > > > Please see the link to the page on the database: > https://members.ncsg.is/civicrm/contact/view?reset=1&cid=2344 > [members.ncsg.is] > > > > > It?s strange he is still listed on the NCSG membership page. Might we > bring this up with Wapix, as I reckon it has something to do with the way > the data is replaced when there is a change in status? > > > > > > > > Many thanks, > > -- > > > > *Maryam Bakoshi* | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator > > *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > *S*: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | *T*: +44 7846 471777 > > > > > > *From: *NCSG-EC on behalf of NCSG EC < > ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> > *Reply to: *Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix > *Date: *Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 01:12 > *To: *NCSG EC > *Subject: *[Ext] [NCSG-EC] Deceased member (David Vyorst) > > > > Hi all > > > > It seems that David Vyorst, who passed away in 2017, is still listed as a > member (individual in NPOC?+NCSG). Farzaneh notified me. > > > > Do we have a "process" for that? > > > > Have a nice day, > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Wed May 27 16:37:08 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 09:37:08 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Data transfer schedule/down time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, So the transfer is on halt while we resolve nameserver control issues. Hopefully that will be solved today and the transfer will take place as planned. How ironic that nameservers are causing us problems! Anyhow... Have a nice day, On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 2:21 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > The transatlantic voyage of our membership data is scheduled for "tomorrow > night," that is sometime between 10pm UTC on 27/05 and 4am UCT on 28/05. > There will most likely be disruptions to our various services during that > time, in case any of you feel like commenting on membership applications. > > Have a nice day, > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Thu May 28 01:58:02 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 18:58:02 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Data transfer schedule/down time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi again, Problem (most likely) solved and the transfer will take place overnight coming Fri/Sat. Best, On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 9:37 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > So the transfer is on halt while we resolve nameserver control issues. > Hopefully that will be solved today and the transfer will take place as > planned. > > How ironic that nameservers are causing us problems! Anyhow... > > Have a nice day, > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 2:21 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < > rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> The transatlantic voyage of our membership data is scheduled for >> "tomorrow night," that is sometime between 10pm UTC on 27/05 and 4am UCT on >> 28/05. There will most likely be disruptions to our various services during >> that time, in case any of you feel like commenting on membership >> applications. >> >> Have a nice day, >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maryam.bakoshi at icann.org Fri May 29 16:36:00 2020 From: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org (Maryam Bakoshi) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 13:36:00 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-EC] 2020 NCSG Ballot for Election - Please Review Message-ID: Dear all, Please find below the NCSG Chair and GNSO Council ballot for elections, for your review. Please respond by Monday, 01 June 2020. NCSG Election 2020 Mark ONLY one box with a tick for the position below: **NCSG Chair** [chair] Bruna Martins dos Santos [chair] Abstain **GNSO Council** Mark ONLY one box with a tick for the position below: [Council1] Stephanie Perrin [Council1] Abstain Mark ONLY one box with a tick for the position below: [Council2] Juan Manuel Rojas [Council2] Abstain Mark ONLY one box with a tick for the position below: [Council3] Julf Helsingius [Council3] Abstain NOTES 1. You can change your vote until the deadline on 20 August 2018, 23:59 UTC. Only the last selection will be counted. 2. If you don't select any choice for a seat, the vote for that seat will be counted as zero. 3. You will receive several reminders during the election with the same link to your ballot. The weight of your vote is indicated in the ballot (1 for individual, 2 for small organization and 4 for large organization). Many thanks, -- Maryam Bakoshi | SO/AC Collaboration Services Sr. Coordinator ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann | T: +44 7846 471777 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca Fri May 29 17:22:50 2020 From: stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca (Stephanie E Perrin) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 10:22:50 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors Message-ID: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> Hi folks, Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated she is not running for Council again this year.? We are thus short of candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions.? This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call that there were other people who were willing to come forward. Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of days, or just leave the EC to appoint? Stephanie From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Fri May 29 17:33:29 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 10:33:29 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> References: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> Message-ID: Fine with me! On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 10:23 AM Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > Hi folks, > > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated she > is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of > candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. > This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call > that there were other people who were willing to come forward. > > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of days, > or just leave the EC to appoint? > > Stephanie > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at ipjustice.org Fri May 29 19:10:30 2020 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 09:10:30 -0700 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> References: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> Message-ID: <0AA26123-E761-4C40-96FB-9A5405400184@ipjustice.org> I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in this instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the appointment as directed by our foundational document. Thank you. Best, Robin > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated she is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call that there were other people who were willing to come forward. > > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of days, or just leave the EC to appoint? > > Stephanie > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Fri May 29 19:30:20 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 12:30:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: <0AA26123-E761-4C40-96FB-9A5405400184@ipjustice.org> References: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> <0AA26123-E761-4C40-96FB-9A5405400184@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi Robin Are you suggesting we appoint someone? I'm not sure what part of the charter you are referring to. I could not find language in the charter that fits our current circumstances, that is a defacto vacancy for lack of candidates. There is the second paragraph of 3.2, but that seems to be limited to a vacancy during the term of a councilor, as we did with Farzaneh if I remember correctly. I might have missed the relevant language though. In any case, please don't misinterpret my question; I'm not suggesting we should be fighting over the meaning of Charter words! Whether mandated or not, I'd be fine appointing someone, but ideally I would prefer us to be clear on why we are doing what we decide to do. Have a nice day! On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in this > instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the appointment as > directed by our foundational document. Thank you. > > Best, > Robin > > > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < > ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated she > is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of > candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. > This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call > that there were other people who were willing to come forward. > > > > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of days, > or just leave the EC to appoint? > > > > Stephanie > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-EC mailing list > > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at ipjustice.org Fri May 29 20:06:30 2020 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 10:06:30 -0700 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: References: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> <0AA26123-E761-4C40-96FB-9A5405400184@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi Raphael, The charter provides that when there is a vacancy on the Council, the NCSG EC appoints that position. Since we do not have enough candidates to fill the slots, we have vacancies. Those vacancies should be appointed by the NCSG EC as usual. If there are candidates who wish to fill those seats, they should make us aware of it and we can appoint them asap. I?m not in favor of extending the nomination period until there are sufficient candidates. The nomination process has ended and the voting is about to begin according to our timeline. We need to get those slots filled so the folks can assume those positions asap and the membership can focus on things other than constant elections. Also, others in ICANN shouldn?t have to wait for NCSG to fill the slots by more protracted means, which would not even guarantee we have nominations at the end and we would be back to where we are now. We are part of a larger community and others depend on us to operate according to anticipated timelines and documented processes. Thanks, Robin > On May 29, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix wrote: > > Hi Robin > > Are you suggesting we appoint someone? I'm not sure what part of the charter you are referring to. I could not find language in the charter that fits our current circumstances, that is a defacto vacancy for lack of candidates. There is the second paragraph of 3.2, but that seems to be limited to a vacancy during the term of a councilor, as we did with Farzaneh if I remember correctly. I might have missed the relevant language though. > > In any case, please don't misinterpret my question; I'm not suggesting we should be fighting over the meaning of Charter words! Whether mandated or not, I'd be fine appointing someone, but ideally I would prefer us to be clear on why we are doing what we decide to do. > > Have a nice day! > > > > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC > wrote: > I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in this instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the appointment as directed by our foundational document. Thank you. > > Best, > Robin > > > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC > wrote: > > > > Hi folks, > > > > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated she is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call that there were other people who were willing to come forward. > > > > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of days, or just leave the EC to appoint? > > > > Stephanie > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-EC mailing list > > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri May 29 20:17:06 2020 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie E Perrin) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 13:17:06 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: References: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> <0AA26123-E761-4C40-96FB-9A5405400184@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <3799cc92-226a-742b-a064-b8d4480b5295@mail.utoronto.ca> Extending to Monday to accept the nominations that a participant on the call said were standing by, need not extend the timeline. We do believe in elections first.? The timelines are decided by this group in consultation with staff, according to ICANN requirements, but I would point out that ICANN announced elections to be held a month earlier in order to accommodate travel schedules.? We are almost certain we are holding a virtual meeting again, so even if we did go over time, there would be no impact on other stakeholders. I was seeking your views, not proposing violating the charter. Members were upset by the fact that Elsa did not turn down the nomination in time for them to nominate others.? As I have said before, the more the merrier.? If people want the positions, they ought to compete.? But there we are.? Plenty of time for people to put their names forward and send in a candidate statement, if we closed Monday.? But if you prefer to appoint people, how do you propose we run that process, wait until the election is over and then just appoint the number of councillors required, through a submission of names process? Kind regards, Stephanie On 2020-05-29 1:06 p.m., Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: > Hi Raphael, > > The charter provides that when there is a vacancy on the Council, the > NCSG EC appoints that position. ?Since we do not have enough > candidates to fill the slots, we have vacancies. ?Those vacancies > should be appointed by the NCSG EC as usual. ?If there are candidates > who wish to fill those seats, they should make us aware of it and we > can appoint them asap. ?I?m not in favor of extending the nomination > period until there are sufficient candidates. ?The nomination process > has ended and the voting is about to begin according to our timeline. > ?We need to get those slots filled so the folks can assume those > positions asap and the membership can focus on things other than > constant elections. ?Also, others in ICANN shouldn?t have to wait for > NCSG to fill the slots by more protracted means, which would not even > guarantee we have nominations at the end and we would be back to where > we are now. ?We are part of a larger community and others depend on us > to operate according to anticipated timelines and documented processes. > > Thanks, > Robin > >> On May 29, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix >> > >> wrote: >> >> Hi Robin >> >> Are you suggesting we appoint someone? I'm not sure what part of the >> charter you are referring to. I could not find language in the >> charter that fits our current circumstances, that is a defacto >> vacancy for lack of candidates. There is the second paragraph of 3.2, >> but that seems to be limited to a vacancy during the term of a >> councilor, as we did with Farzaneh if I remember correctly. I might >> have missed the relevant language though. >> >> In any case, please don't misinterpret my question; I'm not >> suggesting we should be fighting over the meaning of Charter words! >> Whether mandated or not, I'd be fine appointing someone, but ideally >> I would prefer us to be clear on why we are doing what we decide to do. >> >> Have a nice day! >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC >> > wrote: >> >> I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in >> this instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the >> appointment as directed by our foundational document.? Thank you. >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >> > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC >> > wrote: >> > >> > Hi folks, >> > >> > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has >> indicated she is not running for Council again this year.? We are >> thus short of candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and >> myself) for 4 positions.? This is far from ideal, and it was >> pointed out by one member on the call that there were other >> people who were willing to come forward. >> > >> > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple >> of days, or just leave the EC to appoint? >> > >> > Stephanie >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > NCSG-EC mailing list >> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at ipjustice.org Fri May 29 20:27:59 2020 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 10:27:59 -0700 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: <3799cc92-226a-742b-a064-b8d4480b5295@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> <0AA26123-E761-4C40-96FB-9A5405400184@ipjustice.org> <3799cc92-226a-742b-a064-b8d4480b5295@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <01DC2491-AAC2-4074-84C1-810ED215DE5E@ipjustice.org> Thanks, Steph. Yes, I do think we continue with our election timeline as agreed and ask for candidate statements to fill those appointed slots. I don?t think we need to wait until after the election to make that usual request for candidates from our membership since we know now that we need to fill them. Anyone who was too timid to nominate during the nomination period can send in their candidate statement to the EC for appointment. It is a shame that they did not nominate during the nomination process, but they can still get on via appointment. Thanks. Best, Robin > On May 29, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC wrote: > > Extending to Monday to accept the nominations that a participant on the call said were standing by, need not extend the timeline. We do believe in elections first. The timelines are decided by this group in consultation with staff, according to ICANN requirements, but I would point out that ICANN announced elections to be held a month earlier in order to accommodate travel schedules. We are almost certain we are holding a virtual meeting again, so even if we did go over time, there would be no impact on other stakeholders. > > I was seeking your views, not proposing violating the charter. Members were upset by the fact that Elsa did not turn down the nomination in time for them to nominate others. As I have said before, the more the merrier. If people want the positions, they ought to compete. But there we are. Plenty of time for people to put their names forward and send in a candidate statement, if we closed Monday. But if you prefer to appoint people, how do you propose we run that process, wait until the election is over and then just appoint the number of councillors required, through a submission of names process? > > Kind regards, > Stephanie > > On 2020-05-29 1:06 p.m., Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: >> Hi Raphael, >> >> The charter provides that when there is a vacancy on the Council, the NCSG EC appoints that position. Since we do not have enough candidates to fill the slots, we have vacancies. Those vacancies should be appointed by the NCSG EC as usual. If there are candidates who wish to fill those seats, they should make us aware of it and we can appoint them asap. I?m not in favor of extending the nomination period until there are sufficient candidates. The nomination process has ended and the voting is about to begin according to our timeline. We need to get those slots filled so the folks can assume those positions asap and the membership can focus on things other than constant elections. Also, others in ICANN shouldn?t have to wait for NCSG to fill the slots by more protracted means, which would not even guarantee we have nominations at the end and we would be back to where we are now. We are part of a larger community and others depend on us to operate according to anticipated timelines and documented processes. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >>> On May 29, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Robin >>> >>> Are you suggesting we appoint someone? I'm not sure what part of the charter you are referring to. I could not find language in the charter that fits our current circumstances, that is a defacto vacancy for lack of candidates. There is the second paragraph of 3.2, but that seems to be limited to a vacancy during the term of a councilor, as we did with Farzaneh if I remember correctly. I might have missed the relevant language though. >>> >>> In any case, please don't misinterpret my question; I'm not suggesting we should be fighting over the meaning of Charter words! Whether mandated or not, I'd be fine appointing someone, but ideally I would prefer us to be clear on why we are doing what we decide to do. >>> >>> Have a nice day! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC > wrote: >>> I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in this instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the appointment as directed by our foundational document. Thank you. >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin >>> >>> > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC > wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi folks, >>> > >>> > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated she is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call that there were other people who were willing to come forward. >>> > >>> > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of days, or just leave the EC to appoint? >>> > >>> > Stephanie >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > NCSG-EC mailing list >>> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stupariu_Ioana at phd.ceu.edu Sat May 30 12:31:15 2020 From: Stupariu_Ioana at phd.ceu.edu (Ioana Stupariu) Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 09:31:15 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: <01DC2491-AAC2-4074-84C1-810ED215DE5E@ipjustice.org> References: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> <0AA26123-E761-4C40-96FB-9A5405400184@ipjustice.org> <3799cc92-226a-742b-a064-b8d4480b5295@mail.utoronto.ca>, <01DC2491-AAC2-4074-84C1-810ED215DE5E@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hello Stephanie, I agree with you! I personally think it is important to respect the timeline of the elections, but also to make elections fair and the outcome representative/community-driven - all whilst respecting the charter. So I am in favour of the EC appointing someone for the vacant seat(s), *provided* this is done in a transparent manner and with equal chances for everyone to submit their candidatures (just like it was done in the past): open call, clear criteria, public timeline for the decision process, public announcements. Have a great weekend, Ioana Ioana Stupariu SJD Candidate - International Business Law -------------------------------------------------------- Central European University Department of Legal Studies Nador u. 11, 1051 Budapest, Hungary Phone: +40744251228 Stupariu_Ioana at phd.ceu.edu | www.ceu.edu [Risultati immagini per ceu logo][https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1BagXXaNk9Ct-0E173kqDcdjXA1Ul7dPB&export=download] ________________________________ From: NCSG-EC on behalf of Robin Gross via NCSG-EC Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 7:27 PM To: Stephanie Perrin Cc: ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors Thanks, Steph. Yes, I do think we continue with our election timeline as agreed and ask for candidate statements to fill those appointed slots. I don?t think we need to wait until after the election to make that usual request for candidates from our membership since we know now that we need to fill them. Anyone who was too timid to nominate during the nomination period can send in their candidate statement to the EC for appointment. It is a shame that they did not nominate during the nomination process, but they can still get on via appointment. Thanks. Best, Robin On May 29, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC > wrote: Extending to Monday to accept the nominations that a participant on the call said were standing by, need not extend the timeline. We do believe in elections first. The timelines are decided by this group in consultation with staff, according to ICANN requirements, but I would point out that ICANN announced elections to be held a month earlier in order to accommodate travel schedules. We are almost certain we are holding a virtual meeting again, so even if we did go over time, there would be no impact on other stakeholders. I was seeking your views, not proposing violating the charter. Members were upset by the fact that Elsa did not turn down the nomination in time for them to nominate others. As I have said before, the more the merrier. If people want the positions, they ought to compete. But there we are. Plenty of time for people to put their names forward and send in a candidate statement, if we closed Monday. But if you prefer to appoint people, how do you propose we run that process, wait until the election is over and then just appoint the number of councillors required, through a submission of names process? Kind regards, Stephanie On 2020-05-29 1:06 p.m., Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: Hi Raphael, The charter provides that when there is a vacancy on the Council, the NCSG EC appoints that position. Since we do not have enough candidates to fill the slots, we have vacancies. Those vacancies should be appointed by the NCSG EC as usual. If there are candidates who wish to fill those seats, they should make us aware of it and we can appoint them asap. I?m not in favor of extending the nomination period until there are sufficient candidates. The nomination process has ended and the voting is about to begin according to our timeline. We need to get those slots filled so the folks can assume those positions asap and the membership can focus on things other than constant elections. Also, others in ICANN shouldn?t have to wait for NCSG to fill the slots by more protracted means, which would not even guarantee we have nominations at the end and we would be back to where we are now. We are part of a larger community and others depend on us to operate according to anticipated timelines and documented processes. Thanks, Robin On May 29, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix > wrote: Hi Robin Are you suggesting we appoint someone? I'm not sure what part of the charter you are referring to. I could not find language in the charter that fits our current circumstances, that is a defacto vacancy for lack of candidates. There is the second paragraph of 3.2, but that seems to be limited to a vacancy during the term of a councilor, as we did with Farzaneh if I remember correctly. I might have missed the relevant language though. In any case, please don't misinterpret my question; I'm not suggesting we should be fighting over the meaning of Charter words! Whether mandated or not, I'd be fine appointing someone, but ideally I would prefer us to be clear on why we are doing what we decide to do. Have a nice day! On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC > wrote: I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in this instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the appointment as directed by our foundational document. Thank you. Best, Robin > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC > wrote: > > Hi folks, > > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated she is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call that there were other people who were willing to come forward. > > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of days, or just leave the EC to appoint? > > Stephanie > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec _______________________________________________ NCSG-EC mailing list NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec _______________________________________________ NCSG-EC mailing list NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec _______________________________________________ NCSG-EC mailing list NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From plommer at gmail.com Sat May 30 15:47:41 2020 From: plommer at gmail.com (Raoul Plommer) Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 15:47:41 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: <01DC2491-AAC2-4074-84C1-810ED215DE5E@ipjustice.org> References: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> <0AA26123-E761-4C40-96FB-9A5405400184@ipjustice.org> <3799cc92-226a-742b-a064-b8d4480b5295@mail.utoronto.ca> <01DC2491-AAC2-4074-84C1-810ED215DE5E@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Let's extend the nomination period until Monday 23.59 PST and try to get through this with a normal election. If we don't get more candidates in that time, we'll appoint after. -Raoul On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 20:28, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: > Thanks, Steph. Yes, I do think we continue with our election timeline as > agreed and ask for candidate statements to fill those appointed slots. I > don?t think we need to wait until after the election to make that usual > request for candidates from our membership since we know now that we need > to fill them. Anyone who was too timid to nominate during the nomination > period can send in their candidate statement to the EC for appointment. It > is a shame that they did not nominate during the nomination process, but > they can still get on via appointment. Thanks. > > Best, > Robin > > On May 29, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < > ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > > Extending to Monday to accept the nominations that a participant on the > call said were standing by, need not extend the timeline. We do believe in > elections first. The timelines are decided by this group in consultation > with staff, according to ICANN requirements, but I would point out that > ICANN announced elections to be held a month earlier in order to > accommodate travel schedules. We are almost certain we are holding a > virtual meeting again, so even if we did go over time, there would be no > impact on other stakeholders. > > I was seeking your views, not proposing violating the charter. Members > were upset by the fact that Elsa did not turn down the nomination in time > for them to nominate others. As I have said before, the more the merrier. > If people want the positions, they ought to compete. But there we are. > Plenty of time for people to put their names forward and send in a > candidate statement, if we closed Monday. But if you prefer to appoint > people, how do you propose we run that process, wait until the election is > over and then just appoint the number of councillors required, through a > submission of names process? > > Kind regards, > > Stephanie > > > On 2020-05-29 1:06 p.m., Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: > > Hi Raphael, > > The charter provides that when there is a vacancy on the Council, the NCSG > EC appoints that position. Since we do not have enough candidates to fill > the slots, we have vacancies. Those vacancies should be appointed by the > NCSG EC as usual. If there are candidates who wish to fill those seats, > they should make us aware of it and we can appoint them asap. I?m not in > favor of extending the nomination period until there are sufficient > candidates. The nomination process has ended and the voting is about to > begin according to our timeline. We need to get those slots filled so the > folks can assume those positions asap and the membership can focus on > things other than constant elections. Also, others in ICANN shouldn?t have > to wait for NCSG to fill the slots by more protracted means, which would > not even guarantee we have nominations at the end and we would be back to > where we are now. We are part of a larger community and others depend on > us to operate according to anticipated timelines and documented processes. > > Thanks, > Robin > > On May 29, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < > rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Robin > > Are you suggesting we appoint someone? I'm not sure what part of the > charter you are referring to. I could not find language in the charter that > fits our current circumstances, that is a defacto vacancy for lack of > candidates. There is the second paragraph of 3.2, but that seems to be > limited to a vacancy during the term of a councilor, as we did with > Farzaneh if I remember correctly. I might have missed the relevant language > though. > > In any case, please don't misinterpret my question; I'm not suggesting we > should be fighting over the meaning of Charter words! Whether mandated or > not, I'd be fine appointing someone, but ideally I would prefer us to be > clear on why we are doing what we decide to do. > > Have a nice day! > > > > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < > ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > >> I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in this >> instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the appointment as >> directed by our foundational document. Thank you. >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >> > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < >> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >> > >> > Hi folks, >> > >> > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated she >> is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of >> candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. >> This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call >> that there were other people who were willing to come forward. >> > >> > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of days, >> or just leave the EC to appoint? >> > >> > Stephanie >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > NCSG-EC mailing list >> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing listNCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Sat May 30 17:33:26 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 10:33:26 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: References: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> <0AA26123-E761-4C40-96FB-9A5405400184@ipjustice.org> <3799cc92-226a-742b-a064-b8d4480b5295@mail.utoronto.ca> <01DC2491-AAC2-4074-84C1-810ED215DE5E@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: I don't think I have a strong view one way or another, there are good arguments on both sides. I'm fine with any outcome as long as it keeps us on schedule, and that we make the process and rationale clear to the membership. Have a nice day! On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 8:48 AM Raoul Plommer via NCSG-EC < ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > Let's extend the nomination period until Monday 23.59 PST and try to get > through this with a normal election. If we don't get more candidates in > that time, we'll appoint after. > > -Raoul > > On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 20:28, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < > ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > >> Thanks, Steph. Yes, I do think we continue with our election timeline as >> agreed and ask for candidate statements to fill those appointed slots. I >> don?t think we need to wait until after the election to make that usual >> request for candidates from our membership since we know now that we need >> to fill them. Anyone who was too timid to nominate during the nomination >> period can send in their candidate statement to the EC for appointment. It >> is a shame that they did not nominate during the nomination process, but >> they can still get on via appointment. Thanks. >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >> On May 29, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < >> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >> >> Extending to Monday to accept the nominations that a participant on the >> call said were standing by, need not extend the timeline. We do believe in >> elections first. The timelines are decided by this group in consultation >> with staff, according to ICANN requirements, but I would point out that >> ICANN announced elections to be held a month earlier in order to >> accommodate travel schedules. We are almost certain we are holding a >> virtual meeting again, so even if we did go over time, there would be no >> impact on other stakeholders. >> >> I was seeking your views, not proposing violating the charter. Members >> were upset by the fact that Elsa did not turn down the nomination in time >> for them to nominate others. As I have said before, the more the merrier. >> If people want the positions, they ought to compete. But there we are. >> Plenty of time for people to put their names forward and send in a >> candidate statement, if we closed Monday. But if you prefer to appoint >> people, how do you propose we run that process, wait until the election is >> over and then just appoint the number of councillors required, through a >> submission of names process? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Stephanie >> >> >> On 2020-05-29 1:06 p.m., Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: >> >> Hi Raphael, >> >> The charter provides that when there is a vacancy on the Council, the >> NCSG EC appoints that position. Since we do not have enough candidates to >> fill the slots, we have vacancies. Those vacancies should be appointed by >> the NCSG EC as usual. If there are candidates who wish to fill those >> seats, they should make us aware of it and we can appoint them asap. I?m >> not in favor of extending the nomination period until there are sufficient >> candidates. The nomination process has ended and the voting is about to >> begin according to our timeline. We need to get those slots filled so the >> folks can assume those positions asap and the membership can focus on >> things other than constant elections. Also, others in ICANN shouldn?t have >> to wait for NCSG to fill the slots by more protracted means, which would >> not even guarantee we have nominations at the end and we would be back to >> where we are now. We are part of a larger community and others depend on >> us to operate according to anticipated timelines and documented processes. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> On May 29, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < >> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Robin >> >> Are you suggesting we appoint someone? I'm not sure what part of the >> charter you are referring to. I could not find language in the charter that >> fits our current circumstances, that is a defacto vacancy for lack of >> candidates. There is the second paragraph of 3.2, but that seems to be >> limited to a vacancy during the term of a councilor, as we did with >> Farzaneh if I remember correctly. I might have missed the relevant language >> though. >> >> In any case, please don't misinterpret my question; I'm not suggesting we >> should be fighting over the meaning of Charter words! Whether mandated or >> not, I'd be fine appointing someone, but ideally I would prefer us to be >> clear on why we are doing what we decide to do. >> >> Have a nice day! >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < >> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >> >>> I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in this >>> instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the appointment as >>> directed by our foundational document. Thank you. >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin >>> >>> > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < >>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi folks, >>> > >>> > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated she >>> is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of >>> candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. >>> This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call >>> that there were other people who were willing to come forward. >>> > >>> > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of >>> days, or just leave the EC to appoint? >>> > >>> > Stephanie >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > NCSG-EC mailing list >>> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing listNCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Sat May 30 17:37:20 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 10:37:20 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Data transfer schedule/down time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all I'm glad to report that something worked as expected (?!) and the transfer is now done. So no more dabbing into tech stuff until elections are done, and let's hope we don't run into further problems until then. Have a nice weekend, On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:58 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi again, > > Problem (most likely) solved and the transfer will take place overnight > coming Fri/Sat. > > Best, > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 9:37 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < > rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> So the transfer is on halt while we resolve nameserver control issues. >> Hopefully that will be solved today and the transfer will take place as >> planned. >> >> How ironic that nameservers are causing us problems! Anyhow... >> >> Have a nice day, >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 2:21 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < >> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> The transatlantic voyage of our membership data is scheduled for >>> "tomorrow night," that is sometime between 10pm UTC on 27/05 and 4am UCT on >>> 28/05. There will most likely be disruptions to our various services during >>> that time, in case any of you feel like commenting on membership >>> applications. >>> >>> Have a nice day, >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat May 30 18:13:17 2020 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie E Perrin) Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 11:13:17 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Data transfer schedule/down time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That's great, and thanks again, so much, for doing this.? not my jam, as my grandson likes to say.... Steph On 2020-05-30 10:37 a.m., Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC wrote: > Hi all > > I'm glad to report that something worked as expected (?!) and the > transfer is now done. So no more dabbing into tech stuff until > elections are done, and let's hope we don't run into further problems > until then. > > Have a nice weekend, > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:58 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix > > > wrote: > > Hi again, > > Problem (most likely) solved and the transfer will take place > overnight coming Fri/Sat. > > Best, > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 9:37 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix > > wrote: > > Hi all, > > So the transfer is on halt while we resolve nameserver control > issues. Hopefully that will be solved today and the transfer > will take place as planned. > > How ironic that nameservers are causing us problems! Anyhow... > > Have a nice day, > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 2:21 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix > > wrote: > > Hi all, > > The transatlantic voyage of our membership data is > scheduled for "tomorrow night," that is sometime between > 10pm UTC on 27/05 and 4am UCT on 28/05. There will most > likely be disruptions to our various services during that > time, in case any of you feel like commenting on > membership applications. > > Have a nice day, > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at ipjustice.org Sat May 30 18:29:00 2020 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 08:29:00 -0700 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: References: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> <0AA26123-E761-4C40-96FB-9A5405400184@ipjustice.org> <3799cc92-226a-742b-a064-b8d4480b5295@mail.utoronto.ca> <01DC2491-AAC2-4074-84C1-810ED215DE5E@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <87597E93-D04C-4861-B3D5-D76FC6535DEB@ipjustice.org> While I?m leery of making up processes on the fly, I believe a reasonable compromise could be to extend the nomination period until 05/25/20 Monday 23.59 PST as Raoul suggests. Of course, this is provided that, as Raphael suggests, we can stick to our timeline in terms of voting, announcing results, etc, so hopefully Maryam can confirm that. Thanks, Robin > On May 30, 2020, at 7:33 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC wrote: > > I don't think I have a strong view one way or another, there are good arguments on both sides. I'm fine with any outcome as long as it keeps us on schedule, and that we make the process and rationale clear to the membership. > > Have a nice day! > > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 8:48 AM Raoul Plommer via NCSG-EC > wrote: > Let's extend the nomination period until Monday 23.59 PST and try to get through this with a normal election. If we don't get more candidates in that time, we'll appoint after. > > -Raoul > > On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 20:28, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC > wrote: > Thanks, Steph. Yes, I do think we continue with our election timeline as agreed and ask for candidate statements to fill those appointed slots. I don?t think we need to wait until after the election to make that usual request for candidates from our membership since we know now that we need to fill them. Anyone who was too timid to nominate during the nomination period can send in their candidate statement to the EC for appointment. It is a shame that they did not nominate during the nomination process, but they can still get on via appointment. Thanks. > > Best, > Robin > >> On May 29, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC > wrote: >> >> Extending to Monday to accept the nominations that a participant on the call said were standing by, need not extend the timeline. We do believe in elections first. The timelines are decided by this group in consultation with staff, according to ICANN requirements, but I would point out that ICANN announced elections to be held a month earlier in order to accommodate travel schedules. We are almost certain we are holding a virtual meeting again, so even if we did go over time, there would be no impact on other stakeholders. >> >> I was seeking your views, not proposing violating the charter. Members were upset by the fact that Elsa did not turn down the nomination in time for them to nominate others. As I have said before, the more the merrier. If people want the positions, they ought to compete. But there we are. Plenty of time for people to put their names forward and send in a candidate statement, if we closed Monday. But if you prefer to appoint people, how do you propose we run that process, wait until the election is over and then just appoint the number of councillors required, through a submission of names process? >> >> Kind regards, >> Stephanie >> >> On 2020-05-29 1:06 p.m., Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: >>> Hi Raphael, >>> >>> The charter provides that when there is a vacancy on the Council, the NCSG EC appoints that position. Since we do not have enough candidates to fill the slots, we have vacancies. Those vacancies should be appointed by the NCSG EC as usual. If there are candidates who wish to fill those seats, they should make us aware of it and we can appoint them asap. I?m not in favor of extending the nomination period until there are sufficient candidates. The nomination process has ended and the voting is about to begin according to our timeline. We need to get those slots filled so the folks can assume those positions asap and the membership can focus on things other than constant elections. Also, others in ICANN shouldn?t have to wait for NCSG to fill the slots by more protracted means, which would not even guarantee we have nominations at the end and we would be back to where we are now. We are part of a larger community and others depend on us to operate according to anticipated timelines and documented processes. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robin >>> >>>> On May 29, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Robin >>>> >>>> Are you suggesting we appoint someone? I'm not sure what part of the charter you are referring to. I could not find language in the charter that fits our current circumstances, that is a defacto vacancy for lack of candidates. There is the second paragraph of 3.2, but that seems to be limited to a vacancy during the term of a councilor, as we did with Farzaneh if I remember correctly. I might have missed the relevant language though. >>>> >>>> In any case, please don't misinterpret my question; I'm not suggesting we should be fighting over the meaning of Charter words! Whether mandated or not, I'd be fine appointing someone, but ideally I would prefer us to be clear on why we are doing what we decide to do. >>>> >>>> Have a nice day! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC > wrote: >>>> I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in this instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the appointment as directed by our foundational document. Thank you. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Robin >>>> >>>> > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hi folks, >>>> > >>>> > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated she is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call that there were other people who were willing to come forward. >>>> > >>>> > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of days, or just leave the EC to appoint? >>>> > >>>> > Stephanie >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > NCSG-EC mailing list >>>> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From plommer at gmail.com Sat May 30 19:33:17 2020 From: plommer at gmail.com (Raoul Plommer) Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 19:33:17 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: <87597E93-D04C-4861-B3D5-D76FC6535DEB@ipjustice.org> References: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> <0AA26123-E761-4C40-96FB-9A5405400184@ipjustice.org> <3799cc92-226a-742b-a064-b8d4480b5295@mail.utoronto.ca> <01DC2491-AAC2-4074-84C1-810ED215DE5E@ipjustice.org> <87597E93-D04C-4861-B3D5-D76FC6535DEB@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Great, I think we are unanimous now so let's quickly announce the extension to the deadline :) -Raoul On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 18:29, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: > While I?m leery of making up processes on the fly, I believe a reasonable > compromise could be to extend the nomination period until 05/25/20 Monday > 23.59 PST as Raoul suggests. Of course, this is provided that, as Raphael > suggests, we can stick to our timeline in terms of voting, announcing > results, etc, so hopefully Maryam can confirm that. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On May 30, 2020, at 7:33 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC < > ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > > I don't think I have a strong view one way or another, there are good > arguments on both sides. I'm fine with any outcome as long as it keeps us > on schedule, and that we make the process and rationale clear to the > membership. > > Have a nice day! > > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 8:48 AM Raoul Plommer via NCSG-EC < > ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > >> Let's extend the nomination period until Monday 23.59 PST and try to get >> through this with a normal election. If we don't get more candidates in >> that time, we'll appoint after. >> >> -Raoul >> >> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 20:28, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < >> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >> >>> Thanks, Steph. Yes, I do think we continue with our election timeline >>> as agreed and ask for candidate statements to fill those appointed slots. >>> I don?t think we need to wait until after the election to make that usual >>> request for candidates from our membership since we know now that we need >>> to fill them. Anyone who was too timid to nominate during the nomination >>> period can send in their candidate statement to the EC for appointment. It >>> is a shame that they did not nominate during the nomination process, but >>> they can still get on via appointment. Thanks. >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin >>> >>> On May 29, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < >>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>> >>> Extending to Monday to accept the nominations that a participant on the >>> call said were standing by, need not extend the timeline. We do believe in >>> elections first. The timelines are decided by this group in consultation >>> with staff, according to ICANN requirements, but I would point out that >>> ICANN announced elections to be held a month earlier in order to >>> accommodate travel schedules. We are almost certain we are holding a >>> virtual meeting again, so even if we did go over time, there would be no >>> impact on other stakeholders. >>> >>> I was seeking your views, not proposing violating the charter. Members >>> were upset by the fact that Elsa did not turn down the nomination in time >>> for them to nominate others. As I have said before, the more the merrier. >>> If people want the positions, they ought to compete. But there we are. >>> Plenty of time for people to put their names forward and send in a >>> candidate statement, if we closed Monday. But if you prefer to appoint >>> people, how do you propose we run that process, wait until the election is >>> over and then just appoint the number of councillors required, through a >>> submission of names process? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Stephanie >>> >>> >>> On 2020-05-29 1:06 p.m., Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: >>> >>> Hi Raphael, >>> >>> The charter provides that when there is a vacancy on the Council, the >>> NCSG EC appoints that position. Since we do not have enough candidates to >>> fill the slots, we have vacancies. Those vacancies should be appointed by >>> the NCSG EC as usual. If there are candidates who wish to fill those >>> seats, they should make us aware of it and we can appoint them asap. I?m >>> not in favor of extending the nomination period until there are sufficient >>> candidates. The nomination process has ended and the voting is about to >>> begin according to our timeline. We need to get those slots filled so the >>> folks can assume those positions asap and the membership can focus on >>> things other than constant elections. Also, others in ICANN shouldn?t have >>> to wait for NCSG to fill the slots by more protracted means, which would >>> not even guarantee we have nominations at the end and we would be back to >>> where we are now. We are part of a larger community and others depend on >>> us to operate according to anticipated timelines and documented processes. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robin >>> >>> On May 29, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < >>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Robin >>> >>> Are you suggesting we appoint someone? I'm not sure what part of the >>> charter you are referring to. I could not find language in the charter that >>> fits our current circumstances, that is a defacto vacancy for lack of >>> candidates. There is the second paragraph of 3.2, but that seems to be >>> limited to a vacancy during the term of a councilor, as we did with >>> Farzaneh if I remember correctly. I might have missed the relevant language >>> though. >>> >>> In any case, please don't misinterpret my question; I'm not suggesting >>> we should be fighting over the meaning of Charter words! Whether mandated >>> or not, I'd be fine appointing someone, but ideally I would prefer us to be >>> clear on why we are doing what we decide to do. >>> >>> Have a nice day! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < >>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>> >>>> I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in this >>>> instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the appointment as >>>> directed by our foundational document. Thank you. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Robin >>>> >>>> > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < >>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hi folks, >>>> > >>>> > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated >>>> she is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of >>>> candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. >>>> This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call >>>> that there were other people who were willing to come forward. >>>> > >>>> > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of >>>> days, or just leave the EC to appoint? >>>> > >>>> > Stephanie >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > NCSG-EC mailing list >>>> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing listNCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From plommer at gmail.com Sun May 31 13:25:37 2020 From: plommer at gmail.com (Raoul Plommer) Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 13:25:37 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: References: <1e51e4f3-f46d-1d5c-8945-586fa8453464@digitaldiscretion.ca> <0AA26123-E761-4C40-96FB-9A5405400184@ipjustice.org> <3799cc92-226a-742b-a064-b8d4480b5295@mail.utoronto.ca> <01DC2491-AAC2-4074-84C1-810ED215DE5E@ipjustice.org> <87597E93-D04C-4861-B3D5-D76FC6535DEB@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: If I don't get an opposing response to this email by 12 UTC, I will announce the extension until 23.59PST. -Raoul On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 19:33, Raoul Plommer wrote: > Great, I think we are unanimous now so let's quickly announce the > extension to the deadline :) > > -Raoul > > On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 18:29, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < > ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > >> While I?m leery of making up processes on the fly, I believe a reasonable >> compromise could be to extend the nomination period until 05/25/20 Monday >> 23.59 PST as Raoul suggests. Of course, this is provided that, as Raphael >> suggests, we can stick to our timeline in terms of voting, announcing >> results, etc, so hopefully Maryam can confirm that. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> >> On May 30, 2020, at 7:33 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC < >> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >> >> I don't think I have a strong view one way or another, there are good >> arguments on both sides. I'm fine with any outcome as long as it keeps us >> on schedule, and that we make the process and rationale clear to the >> membership. >> >> Have a nice day! >> >> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 8:48 AM Raoul Plommer via NCSG-EC < >> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >> >>> Let's extend the nomination period until Monday 23.59 PST and try to get >>> through this with a normal election. If we don't get more candidates in >>> that time, we'll appoint after. >>> >>> -Raoul >>> >>> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 20:28, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < >>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks, Steph. Yes, I do think we continue with our election timeline >>>> as agreed and ask for candidate statements to fill those appointed slots. >>>> I don?t think we need to wait until after the election to make that usual >>>> request for candidates from our membership since we know now that we need >>>> to fill them. Anyone who was too timid to nominate during the nomination >>>> period can send in their candidate statement to the EC for appointment. It >>>> is a shame that they did not nominate during the nomination process, but >>>> they can still get on via appointment. Thanks. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Robin >>>> >>>> On May 29, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < >>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>>> >>>> Extending to Monday to accept the nominations that a participant on the >>>> call said were standing by, need not extend the timeline. We do believe in >>>> elections first. The timelines are decided by this group in consultation >>>> with staff, according to ICANN requirements, but I would point out that >>>> ICANN announced elections to be held a month earlier in order to >>>> accommodate travel schedules. We are almost certain we are holding a >>>> virtual meeting again, so even if we did go over time, there would be no >>>> impact on other stakeholders. >>>> >>>> I was seeking your views, not proposing violating the charter. Members >>>> were upset by the fact that Elsa did not turn down the nomination in time >>>> for them to nominate others. As I have said before, the more the merrier. >>>> If people want the positions, they ought to compete. But there we are. >>>> Plenty of time for people to put their names forward and send in a >>>> candidate statement, if we closed Monday. But if you prefer to appoint >>>> people, how do you propose we run that process, wait until the election is >>>> over and then just appoint the number of councillors required, through a >>>> submission of names process? >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Stephanie >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2020-05-29 1:06 p.m., Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Raphael, >>>> >>>> The charter provides that when there is a vacancy on the Council, the >>>> NCSG EC appoints that position. Since we do not have enough candidates to >>>> fill the slots, we have vacancies. Those vacancies should be appointed by >>>> the NCSG EC as usual. If there are candidates who wish to fill those >>>> seats, they should make us aware of it and we can appoint them asap. I?m >>>> not in favor of extending the nomination period until there are sufficient >>>> candidates. The nomination process has ended and the voting is about to >>>> begin according to our timeline. We need to get those slots filled so the >>>> folks can assume those positions asap and the membership can focus on >>>> things other than constant elections. Also, others in ICANN shouldn?t have >>>> to wait for NCSG to fill the slots by more protracted means, which would >>>> not even guarantee we have nominations at the end and we would be back to >>>> where we are now. We are part of a larger community and others depend on >>>> us to operate according to anticipated timelines and documented processes. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Robin >>>> >>>> On May 29, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < >>>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Robin >>>> >>>> Are you suggesting we appoint someone? I'm not sure what part of the >>>> charter you are referring to. I could not find language in the charter that >>>> fits our current circumstances, that is a defacto vacancy for lack of >>>> candidates. There is the second paragraph of 3.2, but that seems to be >>>> limited to a vacancy during the term of a councilor, as we did with >>>> Farzaneh if I remember correctly. I might have missed the relevant language >>>> though. >>>> >>>> In any case, please don't misinterpret my question; I'm not suggesting >>>> we should be fighting over the meaning of Charter words! Whether mandated >>>> or not, I'd be fine appointing someone, but ideally I would prefer us to be >>>> clear on why we are doing what we decide to do. >>>> >>>> Have a nice day! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < >>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in this >>>>> instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the appointment as >>>>> directed by our foundational document. Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Robin >>>>> >>>>> > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < >>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi folks, >>>>> > >>>>> > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated >>>>> she is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of >>>>> candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. >>>>> This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call >>>>> that there were other people who were willing to come forward. >>>>> > >>>>> > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of >>>>> days, or just leave the EC to appoint? >>>>> > >>>>> > Stephanie >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-EC mailing listNCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sun May 31 14:37:15 2020 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (U Of T) Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 07:37:15 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks folks, i think this is a great compromise but i must recuse myself from the decision since i am a candidate. Stephanie Sent from my iPhone > On May 31, 2020, at 06:26, Raoul Plommer via NCSG-EC wrote: > > ? > If I don't get an opposing response to this email by 12 UTC, I will announce the extension until 23.59PST. > > -Raoul > >> On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 19:33, Raoul Plommer wrote: >> Great, I think we are unanimous now so let's quickly announce the extension to the deadline :) >> >> -Raoul >> >>> On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 18:29, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: >>> While I?m leery of making up processes on the fly, I believe a reasonable compromise could be to extend the nomination period until 05/25/20 Monday 23.59 PST as Raoul suggests. Of course, this is provided that, as Raphael suggests, we can stick to our timeline in terms of voting, announcing results, etc, so hopefully Maryam can confirm that. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>>> On May 30, 2020, at 7:33 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't think I have a strong view one way or another, there are good arguments on both sides. I'm fine with any outcome as long as it keeps us on schedule, and that we make the process and rationale clear to the membership. >>>> >>>> Have a nice day! >>>> >>>>> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 8:48 AM Raoul Plommer via NCSG-EC wrote: >>>>> Let's extend the nomination period until Monday 23.59 PST and try to get through this with a normal election. If we don't get more candidates in that time, we'll appoint after. >>>>> >>>>> -Raoul >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 20:28, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: >>>>>> Thanks, Steph. Yes, I do think we continue with our election timeline as agreed and ask for candidate statements to fill those appointed slots. I don?t think we need to wait until after the election to make that usual request for candidates from our membership since we know now that we need to fill them. Anyone who was too timid to nominate during the nomination period can send in their candidate statement to the EC for appointment. It is a shame that they did not nominate during the nomination process, but they can still get on via appointment. Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Robin >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 29, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Extending to Monday to accept the nominations that a participant on the call said were standing by, need not extend the timeline. We do believe in elections first. The timelines are decided by this group in consultation with staff, according to ICANN requirements, but I would point out that ICANN announced elections to be held a month earlier in order to accommodate travel schedules. We are almost certain we are holding a virtual meeting again, so even if we did go over time, there would be no impact on other stakeholders. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was seeking your views, not proposing violating the charter. Members were upset by the fact that Elsa did not turn down the nomination in time for them to nominate others. As I have said before, the more the merrier. If people want the positions, they ought to compete. But there we are. Plenty of time for people to put their names forward and send in a candidate statement, if we closed Monday. But if you prefer to appoint people, how do you propose we run that process, wait until the election is over and then just appoint the number of councillors required, through a submission of names process? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stephanie >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2020-05-29 1:06 p.m., Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Raphael, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The charter provides that when there is a vacancy on the Council, the NCSG EC appoints that position. Since we do not have enough candidates to fill the slots, we have vacancies. Those vacancies should be appointed by the NCSG EC as usual. If there are candidates who wish to fill those seats, they should make us aware of it and we can appoint them asap. I?m not in favor of extending the nomination period until there are sufficient candidates. The nomination process has ended and the voting is about to begin according to our timeline. We need to get those slots filled so the folks can assume those positions asap and the membership can focus on things other than constant elections. Also, others in ICANN shouldn?t have to wait for NCSG to fill the slots by more protracted means, which would not even guarantee we have nominations at the end and we would be back to where we are now. We are part of a larger community and others depend on us to operate according to anticipated timelines and documented processes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Robin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 29, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Robin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are you suggesting we appoint someone? I'm not sure what part of the charter you are referring to. I could not find language in the charter that fits our current circumstances, that is a defacto vacancy for lack of candidates. There is the second paragraph of 3.2, but that seems to be limited to a vacancy during the term of a councilor, as we did with Farzaneh if I remember correctly. I might have missed the relevant language though. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In any case, please don't misinterpret my question; I'm not suggesting we should be fighting over the meaning of Charter words! Whether mandated or not, I'd be fine appointing someone, but ideally I would prefer us to be clear on why we are doing what we decide to do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Have a nice day! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in this instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the appointment as directed by our foundational document. Thank you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> Robin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > Hi folks, >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated she is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call that there were other people who were willing to come forward. >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of days, or just leave the EC to appoint? >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > Stephanie >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> > NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>>>>>>> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From plommer at gmail.com Sun May 31 17:05:11 2020 From: plommer at gmail.com (Raoul Plommer) Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 17:05:11 +0300 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Data transfer schedule/down time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for all the work you've put into this Raphael, I feel I wouldn't have been much help either. -Raoul On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 18:13, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > That's great, and thanks again, so much, for doing this. not my jam, as > my grandson likes to say.... > > Steph > On 2020-05-30 10:37 a.m., Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC wrote: > > Hi all > > I'm glad to report that something worked as expected (?!) and the transfer > is now done. So no more dabbing into tech stuff until elections are done, > and let's hope we don't run into further problems until then. > > Have a nice weekend, > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 6:58 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < > rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi again, >> >> Problem (most likely) solved and the transfer will take place overnight >> coming Fri/Sat. >> >> Best, >> >> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 9:37 AM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < >> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> So the transfer is on halt while we resolve nameserver control issues. >>> Hopefully that will be solved today and the transfer will take place as >>> planned. >>> >>> How ironic that nameservers are causing us problems! Anyhow... >>> >>> Have a nice day, >>> >>> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 2:21 PM Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < >>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> The transatlantic voyage of our membership data is scheduled for >>>> "tomorrow night," that is sometime between 10pm UTC on 27/05 and 4am UCT on >>>> 28/05. There will most likely be disruptions to our various services during >>>> that time, in case any of you feel like commenting on membership >>>> applications. >>>> >>>> Have a nice day, >>>> >>> > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing listNCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at ipjustice.org Sun May 31 20:06:43 2020 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 10:06:43 -0700 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <892AB236-FEB9-41D1-811F-565863272F92@ipjustice.org> Hello all, I see our announcement to slightly extend the nomination of the NCSG election has caused some consternation on the main list. I think we should clarify to the members that our extending of the nomination period applies only to the NCSG election as we don?t have any authority over the constituency election timetables. We should have consulted Bruna if we wanted to propose also extending constituency election periods. But we just made an honest mistake of wording, done in haste, and did not mean to overstep, so I expect others will understand and forgive us for our mis-statement. I do think we need to quickly schedule a 2nd ?meet the candidates call? so the members have an opportunity to talk with who ever comes forward before our new extended deadline. Of course this call would only be for new nominations or nominees who were not able to participate in the original call, so it would be fair to all the nominees in the end. Thanks, Robin > On May 31, 2020, at 4:37 AM, U Of T wrote: > > Thanks folks, i think this is a great compromise but i must recuse myself from the decision since i am a candidate. > Stephanie > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On May 31, 2020, at 06:26, Raoul Plommer via NCSG-EC wrote: >> >> ? >> If I don't get an opposing response to this email by 12 UTC, I will announce the extension until 23.59PST. >> >> -Raoul >> >> On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 19:33, Raoul Plommer > wrote: >> Great, I think we are unanimous now so let's quickly announce the extension to the deadline :) >> >> -Raoul >> >> On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 18:29, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC > wrote: >> While I?m leery of making up processes on the fly, I believe a reasonable compromise could be to extend the nomination period until 05/25/20 Monday 23.59 PST as Raoul suggests. Of course, this is provided that, as Raphael suggests, we can stick to our timeline in terms of voting, announcing results, etc, so hopefully Maryam can confirm that. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> >>> On May 30, 2020, at 7:33 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC > wrote: >>> >>> I don't think I have a strong view one way or another, there are good arguments on both sides. I'm fine with any outcome as long as it keeps us on schedule, and that we make the process and rationale clear to the membership. >>> >>> Have a nice day! >>> >>> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 8:48 AM Raoul Plommer via NCSG-EC > wrote: >>> Let's extend the nomination period until Monday 23.59 PST and try to get through this with a normal election. If we don't get more candidates in that time, we'll appoint after. >>> >>> -Raoul >>> >>> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 20:28, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC > wrote: >>> Thanks, Steph. Yes, I do think we continue with our election timeline as agreed and ask for candidate statements to fill those appointed slots. I don?t think we need to wait until after the election to make that usual request for candidates from our membership since we know now that we need to fill them. Anyone who was too timid to nominate during the nomination period can send in their candidate statement to the EC for appointment. It is a shame that they did not nominate during the nomination process, but they can still get on via appointment. Thanks. >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin >>> >>>> On May 29, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC > wrote: >>>> >>>> Extending to Monday to accept the nominations that a participant on the call said were standing by, need not extend the timeline. We do believe in elections first. The timelines are decided by this group in consultation with staff, according to ICANN requirements, but I would point out that ICANN announced elections to be held a month earlier in order to accommodate travel schedules. We are almost certain we are holding a virtual meeting again, so even if we did go over time, there would be no impact on other stakeholders. >>>> >>>> I was seeking your views, not proposing violating the charter. Members were upset by the fact that Elsa did not turn down the nomination in time for them to nominate others. As I have said before, the more the merrier. If people want the positions, they ought to compete. But there we are. Plenty of time for people to put their names forward and send in a candidate statement, if we closed Monday. But if you prefer to appoint people, how do you propose we run that process, wait until the election is over and then just appoint the number of councillors required, through a submission of names process? >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Stephanie >>>> >>>> On 2020-05-29 1:06 p.m., Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: >>>>> Hi Raphael, >>>>> >>>>> The charter provides that when there is a vacancy on the Council, the NCSG EC appoints that position. Since we do not have enough candidates to fill the slots, we have vacancies. Those vacancies should be appointed by the NCSG EC as usual. If there are candidates who wish to fill those seats, they should make us aware of it and we can appoint them asap. I?m not in favor of extending the nomination period until there are sufficient candidates. The nomination process has ended and the voting is about to begin according to our timeline. We need to get those slots filled so the folks can assume those positions asap and the membership can focus on things other than constant elections. Also, others in ICANN shouldn?t have to wait for NCSG to fill the slots by more protracted means, which would not even guarantee we have nominations at the end and we would be back to where we are now. We are part of a larger community and others depend on us to operate according to anticipated timelines and documented processes. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Robin >>>>> >>>>>> On May 29, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Robin >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you suggesting we appoint someone? I'm not sure what part of the charter you are referring to. I could not find language in the charter that fits our current circumstances, that is a defacto vacancy for lack of candidates. There is the second paragraph of 3.2, but that seems to be limited to a vacancy during the term of a councilor, as we did with Farzaneh if I remember correctly. I might have missed the relevant language though. >>>>>> >>>>>> In any case, please don't misinterpret my question; I'm not suggesting we should be fighting over the meaning of Charter words! Whether mandated or not, I'd be fine appointing someone, but ideally I would prefer us to be clear on why we are doing what we decide to do. >>>>>> >>>>>> Have a nice day! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC > wrote: >>>>>> I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in this instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the appointment as directed by our foundational document. Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Robin >>>>>> >>>>>> > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Hi folks, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated she is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call that there were other people who were willing to come forward. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of days, or just leave the EC to appoint? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Stephanie >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>>> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bruna.mrtns at gmail.com Sun May 31 20:44:34 2020 From: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com (Bruna Martins dos Santos) Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 14:44:34 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: <892AB236-FEB9-41D1-811F-565863272F92@ipjustice.org> References: <892AB236-FEB9-41D1-811F-565863272F92@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hey all, I apologize for meddling with this list and I am fully aware that I am on it as a mere observer. But it would be interesting if you guys had given me a heads up about this. I was closely following these discussions and - despite understanding that Raoul was well intended, I cannot really accept this level of top-down determination with regards to the NCUC Electoral Process. The lack of a candidate for the North American EC of our constituency and a possible postponement of deadlines is something that can only be decided by the NCUC EC. Such problematic decision-making processes such as this one do nothing but undermine our membership trust on our electoral process and we should be more careful in the near future. Best Regards, Bruna On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 2:07 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > Hello all, > > I see our announcement to slightly extend the nomination of the NCSG > election has caused some consternation on the main list. I think we should > clarify to the members that our extending of the nomination period applies > only to the NCSG election as we don?t have any authority over the > constituency election timetables. We should have consulted Bruna if we > wanted to propose also extending constituency election periods. But we > just made an honest mistake of wording, done in haste, and did not mean to > overstep, so I expect others will understand and forgive us for our > mis-statement. I do think we need to quickly schedule a 2nd ?meet the > candidates call? so the members have an opportunity to talk with who ever > comes forward before our new extended deadline. Of course this call would > only be for new nominations or nominees who were not able to participate in > the original call, so it would be fair to all the nominees in the end. > > Thanks, > Robin > > On May 31, 2020, at 4:37 AM, U Of T > wrote: > > Thanks folks, i think this is a great compromise but i must recuse myself > from the decision since i am a candidate. > Stephanie > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 31, 2020, at 06:26, Raoul Plommer via NCSG-EC < > ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > > ? > If I don't get an opposing response to this email by 12 UTC, I will > announce the extension until 23.59PST. > > -Raoul > > On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 19:33, Raoul Plommer wrote: > >> Great, I think we are unanimous now so let's quickly announce the >> extension to the deadline :) >> >> -Raoul >> >> On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 18:29, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < >> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >> >>> While I?m leery of making up processes on the fly, I believe a >>> reasonable compromise could be to extend the nomination period until >>> 05/25/20 Monday 23.59 PST as Raoul suggests. Of course, this is provided >>> that, as Raphael suggests, we can stick to our timeline in terms of voting, >>> announcing results, etc, so hopefully Maryam can confirm that. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> On May 30, 2020, at 7:33 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC < >>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>> >>> I don't think I have a strong view one way or another, there are good >>> arguments on both sides. I'm fine with any outcome as long as it keeps us >>> on schedule, and that we make the process and rationale clear to the >>> membership. >>> >>> Have a nice day! >>> >>> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 8:48 AM Raoul Plommer via NCSG-EC < >>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>> >>>> Let's extend the nomination period until Monday 23.59 PST and try to >>>> get through this with a normal election. If we don't get more candidates in >>>> that time, we'll appoint after. >>>> >>>> -Raoul >>>> >>>> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 20:28, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < >>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks, Steph. Yes, I do think we continue with our election timeline >>>>> as agreed and ask for candidate statements to fill those appointed slots. >>>>> I don?t think we need to wait until after the election to make that usual >>>>> request for candidates from our membership since we know now that we need >>>>> to fill them. Anyone who was too timid to nominate during the nomination >>>>> period can send in their candidate statement to the EC for appointment. It >>>>> is a shame that they did not nominate during the nomination process, but >>>>> they can still get on via appointment. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Robin >>>>> >>>>> On May 29, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < >>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Extending to Monday to accept the nominations that a participant on >>>>> the call said were standing by, need not extend the timeline. We do >>>>> believe in elections first. The timelines are decided by this group in >>>>> consultation with staff, according to ICANN requirements, but I would point >>>>> out that ICANN announced elections to be held a month earlier in order to >>>>> accommodate travel schedules. We are almost certain we are holding a >>>>> virtual meeting again, so even if we did go over time, there would be no >>>>> impact on other stakeholders. >>>>> >>>>> I was seeking your views, not proposing violating the charter. >>>>> Members were upset by the fact that Elsa did not turn down the nomination >>>>> in time for them to nominate others. As I have said before, the more the >>>>> merrier. If people want the positions, they ought to compete. But there >>>>> we are. Plenty of time for people to put their names forward and send in a >>>>> candidate statement, if we closed Monday. But if you prefer to appoint >>>>> people, how do you propose we run that process, wait until the election is >>>>> over and then just appoint the number of councillors required, through a >>>>> submission of names process? >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Stephanie >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2020-05-29 1:06 p.m., Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Raphael, >>>>> >>>>> The charter provides that when there is a vacancy on the Council, the >>>>> NCSG EC appoints that position. Since we do not have enough candidates to >>>>> fill the slots, we have vacancies. Those vacancies should be appointed by >>>>> the NCSG EC as usual. If there are candidates who wish to fill those >>>>> seats, they should make us aware of it and we can appoint them asap. I?m >>>>> not in favor of extending the nomination period until there are sufficient >>>>> candidates. The nomination process has ended and the voting is about to >>>>> begin according to our timeline. We need to get those slots filled so the >>>>> folks can assume those positions asap and the membership can focus on >>>>> things other than constant elections. Also, others in ICANN shouldn?t have >>>>> to wait for NCSG to fill the slots by more protracted means, which would >>>>> not even guarantee we have nominations at the end and we would be back to >>>>> where we are now. We are part of a larger community and others depend on >>>>> us to operate according to anticipated timelines and documented processes. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Robin >>>>> >>>>> On May 29, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < >>>>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Robin >>>>> >>>>> Are you suggesting we appoint someone? I'm not sure what part of the >>>>> charter you are referring to. I could not find language in the charter that >>>>> fits our current circumstances, that is a defacto vacancy for lack of >>>>> candidates. There is the second paragraph of 3.2, but that seems to be >>>>> limited to a vacancy during the term of a councilor, as we did with >>>>> Farzaneh if I remember correctly. I might have missed the relevant language >>>>> though. >>>>> >>>>> In any case, please don't misinterpret my question; I'm not suggesting >>>>> we should be fighting over the meaning of Charter words! Whether mandated >>>>> or not, I'd be fine appointing someone, but ideally I would prefer us to be >>>>> clear on why we are doing what we decide to do. >>>>> >>>>> Have a nice day! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < >>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in this >>>>>> instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the appointment as >>>>>> directed by our foundational document. Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Robin >>>>>> >>>>>> > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < >>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Hi folks, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated >>>>>> she is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of >>>>>> candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. >>>>>> This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call >>>>>> that there were other people who were willing to come forward. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of >>>>>> days, or just leave the EC to appoint? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Stephanie >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>>> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-EC mailing listNCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>> >> _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com Sun May 31 22:26:23 2020 From: rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com (Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix) Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 15:26:23 -0400 Subject: [NCSG-EC] Nomination period for councillors In-Reply-To: References: <892AB236-FEB9-41D1-811F-565863272F92@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi Bruna, all I understand your frustration. It is certainly legitimate. This situation certainly highlights some communication difficulties we've been having, among ourselves and towards the membership in general. Following yours and Robin's intervention on the main thread, I do not think it is necessary that we make further announcements, though. I find it unfortunate that this ends up in yet another procedural debate, but I dont think theres anything we can do about it given what was said (and not said, to start with.) And maybe it was unavoidable, anyway, although now I can see that a majority might have expected us to make an appointment instead of extending the nomination period (even so slightly). I'll keep that in mind for future decisions in circumstances where the Charter is unclear... I also suggest that next time, when one of us volunteers to post something on the main list, we also volunteer the precise language we intend to post, on this list first. I'll do my best to follow that principle too. A nice day to everyone, On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 1:45 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos via NCSG-EC < ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > Hey all, > > I apologize for meddling with this list and I am fully aware that I am on > it as a mere observer. But it would be interesting if you guys had given me > a heads up about this. I was closely following these discussions and - > despite understanding that Raoul was well intended, I cannot really accept > this level of top-down determination with regards to the NCUC Electoral > Process. The lack of a candidate for the North American EC of our > constituency and a possible postponement of deadlines is something that can > only be decided by the NCUC EC. > > Such problematic decision-making processes such as this one do nothing but > undermine our membership trust on our electoral process and we should be > more careful in the near future. > > Best Regards, > Bruna > > On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 2:07 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < > ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> I see our announcement to slightly extend the nomination of the NCSG >> election has caused some consternation on the main list. I think we should >> clarify to the members that our extending of the nomination period applies >> only to the NCSG election as we don?t have any authority over the >> constituency election timetables. We should have consulted Bruna if we >> wanted to propose also extending constituency election periods. But we >> just made an honest mistake of wording, done in haste, and did not mean to >> overstep, so I expect others will understand and forgive us for our >> mis-statement. I do think we need to quickly schedule a 2nd ?meet the >> candidates call? so the members have an opportunity to talk with who ever >> comes forward before our new extended deadline. Of course this call would >> only be for new nominations or nominees who were not able to participate in >> the original call, so it would be fair to all the nominees in the end. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> On May 31, 2020, at 4:37 AM, U Of T >> wrote: >> >> Thanks folks, i think this is a great compromise but i must recuse myself >> from the decision since i am a candidate. >> Stephanie >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On May 31, 2020, at 06:26, Raoul Plommer via NCSG-EC < >> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >> >> ? >> If I don't get an opposing response to this email by 12 UTC, I will >> announce the extension until 23.59PST. >> >> -Raoul >> >> On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 19:33, Raoul Plommer wrote: >> >>> Great, I think we are unanimous now so let's quickly announce the >>> extension to the deadline :) >>> >>> -Raoul >>> >>> On Sat, 30 May 2020 at 18:29, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < >>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>> >>>> While I?m leery of making up processes on the fly, I believe a >>>> reasonable compromise could be to extend the nomination period until >>>> 05/25/20 Monday 23.59 PST as Raoul suggests. Of course, this is provided >>>> that, as Raphael suggests, we can stick to our timeline in terms of voting, >>>> announcing results, etc, so hopefully Maryam can confirm that. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Robin >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 30, 2020, at 7:33 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix via NCSG-EC < >>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't think I have a strong view one way or another, there are good >>>> arguments on both sides. I'm fine with any outcome as long as it keeps us >>>> on schedule, and that we make the process and rationale clear to the >>>> membership. >>>> >>>> Have a nice day! >>>> >>>> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 8:48 AM Raoul Plommer via NCSG-EC < >>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Let's extend the nomination period until Monday 23.59 PST and try to >>>>> get through this with a normal election. If we don't get more candidates in >>>>> that time, we'll appoint after. >>>>> >>>>> -Raoul >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 20:28, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < >>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, Steph. Yes, I do think we continue with our election >>>>>> timeline as agreed and ask for candidate statements to fill those appointed >>>>>> slots. I don?t think we need to wait until after the election to make that >>>>>> usual request for candidates from our membership since we know now that we >>>>>> need to fill them. Anyone who was too timid to nominate during the >>>>>> nomination period can send in their candidate statement to the EC for >>>>>> appointment. It is a shame that they did not nominate during the >>>>>> nomination process, but they can still get on via appointment. Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Robin >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 29, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < >>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Extending to Monday to accept the nominations that a participant on >>>>>> the call said were standing by, need not extend the timeline. We do >>>>>> believe in elections first. The timelines are decided by this group in >>>>>> consultation with staff, according to ICANN requirements, but I would point >>>>>> out that ICANN announced elections to be held a month earlier in order to >>>>>> accommodate travel schedules. We are almost certain we are holding a >>>>>> virtual meeting again, so even if we did go over time, there would be no >>>>>> impact on other stakeholders. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was seeking your views, not proposing violating the charter. >>>>>> Members were upset by the fact that Elsa did not turn down the nomination >>>>>> in time for them to nominate others. As I have said before, the more the >>>>>> merrier. If people want the positions, they ought to compete. But there >>>>>> we are. Plenty of time for people to put their names forward and send in a >>>>>> candidate statement, if we closed Monday. But if you prefer to appoint >>>>>> people, how do you propose we run that process, wait until the election is >>>>>> over and then just appoint the number of councillors required, through a >>>>>> submission of names process? >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Stephanie >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2020-05-29 1:06 p.m., Robin Gross via NCSG-EC wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Raphael, >>>>>> >>>>>> The charter provides that when there is a vacancy on the Council, the >>>>>> NCSG EC appoints that position. Since we do not have enough candidates to >>>>>> fill the slots, we have vacancies. Those vacancies should be appointed by >>>>>> the NCSG EC as usual. If there are candidates who wish to fill those >>>>>> seats, they should make us aware of it and we can appoint them asap. I?m >>>>>> not in favor of extending the nomination period until there are sufficient >>>>>> candidates. The nomination process has ended and the voting is about to >>>>>> begin according to our timeline. We need to get those slots filled so the >>>>>> folks can assume those positions asap and the membership can focus on >>>>>> things other than constant elections. Also, others in ICANN shouldn?t have >>>>>> to wait for NCSG to fill the slots by more protracted means, which would >>>>>> not even guarantee we have nominations at the end and we would be back to >>>>>> where we are now. We are part of a larger community and others depend on >>>>>> us to operate according to anticipated timelines and documented processes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Robin >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 29, 2020, at 9:30 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix < >>>>>> rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Robin >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you suggesting we appoint someone? I'm not sure what part of the >>>>>> charter you are referring to. I could not find language in the charter that >>>>>> fits our current circumstances, that is a defacto vacancy for lack of >>>>>> candidates. There is the second paragraph of 3.2, but that seems to be >>>>>> limited to a vacancy during the term of a councilor, as we did with >>>>>> Farzaneh if I remember correctly. I might have missed the relevant language >>>>>> though. >>>>>> >>>>>> In any case, please don't misinterpret my question; I'm not >>>>>> suggesting we should be fighting over the meaning of Charter words! Whether >>>>>> mandated or not, I'd be fine appointing someone, but ideally I would prefer >>>>>> us to be clear on why we are doing what we decide to do. >>>>>> >>>>>> Have a nice day! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:11 PM Robin Gross via NCSG-EC < >>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I?m strongly in favor of following what the charter dictates in this >>>>>>> instance and therefore we should do our duty and make the appointment as >>>>>>> directed by our foundational document. Thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> Robin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > On May 29, 2020, at 7:22 as AM, Stephanie E Perrin via NCSG-EC < >>>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Hi folks, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Those who were on the call today will know that Elsa has indicated >>>>>>> she is not running for Council again this year. We are thus short of >>>>>>> candidates, having only three (Julf, Juan, and myself) for 4 positions. >>>>>>> This is far from ideal, and it was pointed out by one member on the call >>>>>>> that there were other people who were willing to come forward. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Is it your wish that we open up nominations again for a couple of >>>>>>> days, or just leave the EC to appoint? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Stephanie >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> > NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>>>> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing listNCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-EC mailing list >>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-EC mailing list >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec >> > > > -- > *Bruna Martins dos Santos * > > Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos > @boomartins > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-EC mailing list > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: