[PC-NCSG] NCPH Election to the Board.

[William Drake]

Klaus

On Jul 10, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Klaus Stoll <klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org> wrote:

> 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.

Someone told you wrong.  What he is doing until leaving ISOC early September is setting up the IGF Support Association (which is an ISOC initiative).  He will also be Janis' advisor for Istanbul.  

> 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?.

You?re right, it is not.  As to concentrating energies, the IGF is first week of September and then he?s done.  The Board position is for three years.  He?s probably able to manage his own calendar without our pre-judgements.
> 
> 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.

And I cannot remember you being around in the decade during which he played a central role in helping civil society get at the table and getting multistakeholderism institutionalized in the relevant UN contexts.  But I?d believe you if you said you were.
> 
> 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?

I think most who would care are aware of his role, but if you want to consult before voting, go for it.
> 
> 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.

I see no difference between this process and others, but feel free to discuss.

Cheers

Bill
> 
> 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