[PC-NCSG] NCPH Election to the Board.

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

Markus was very crucial to  open the door for civil society/end users in the UN context and he helped to secure the ICANN friendly paras. in the Tunis Agenda. There is nobody in the present Board who could help ICANN more to save a friendly political environment for ICANN so that ICANN can concentrate to manage its core business. And the GNSO is the right sending body. Remember that the outgoing GNSO Board member Bill Graham started as Canadas GAC rep and moved from there to ISOC and then to th Board. . 

Wolfgang

  


-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: PC-NCSG im Auftrag von Klaus Stoll
Gesendet: Do 10.07.2014 11:07
An: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Election to the Board.
 
Regarding the nomination Markus Kummer. As far as I know Markus is 
departing ISOC and will be responsible for the set-up of the IGF 
secretariat office in Istanbul. At least that's what I am told. This 
might not necessarily be a conflict of interest but would it not be 
better if he was able to concentrate his efforts on this important task?.

Markus has his merits in the broader Ig context, but I can not remember 
him being an important champion for end users, NFP's and NGO's.

Would more consultation first among the NCSG structures (including and 
not excluding NPOC) before consultation with outside parties is done not 
be the right way to go?

We should have a constructive discussion on the nomination of Markus 
Kummer, but at the moment it looks like a proclamation of his candidacy, 
based on a show of hands on an email list, without it. Not the right way 
to go.

Klaus


> Hi
>
> On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> BTW, I spoke to Markus today on another matter, but we also touched on
>> this election. He indicated that if we, NCSG or just the PC, wanted to
>> chat with him he was available.  I told him that while I did not think
>> it necessary, I would pass on his message.
> I've spoken with him as well.  He didn't know the tortured history of this seat, and said he'd heard nothing from CSG so is in limbo.  I pinged the house 'leadership' and asked if there was a process underway to move forward with consideration of the idea, only reply was Ms. Cade privately, hopefully their internal discussions will start to move.  I'm guessing IPC folks may not know him as well as they've not been involved in the UN processes, plus his team at ISOC has made non-preferred utterances in the past couple years (thank you KK :-), so presumably he'll need to do The Interview.  Others informally reacted favorably in private in London, so I would hope that ultimately this should work.  Obviously, it'd be desirable to have unanimity if possible, but if someone wants to go on record as opposing one of the most consensual persons of prominence in the IG world, well whatever.
>> On 09-Jul-14 14:10, David Cake wrote:
>>> I understand that he may not have 100% support right now, and we should
>>> certainly have some discussion to see if any concerns about his
>>> candidacy can be addressed - but I think he is a great candidate.
> Are you referring to the CSG side, or are you saying that someone on our side has concerns?  If so, who, about what?
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>


_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg