[PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate
Maria Farrell
maria.farrell
Tue Jun 3 12:32:49 EEST 2014
Hi all,
It is not a question of fairness that Sam somehow be entitled to now be an
election candidate - in my opinion, we supported his candidacy when we knew
Avri would most likely lose the election, and when we thought the
compromise candidate had a *greater* chance of being agreed to by CSG. We
already agreed as an SG to put Sam in the best position to win and,
unfortunately, he did not.
Putting Sam forward as a candidate now makes no sense in either moral - he
has already had the best chance possible - or tactical - why would the CSG
support a candidate they have already rejected - terms.
Klaus, I would love to think we have a firm chance of getting Sam through
an election, but in the absence of firm information about his level of
support changing, you must see that we cannot put him forward again. This
would unnecessarily antagonise the CSG without any obvious gain for us,
making it even less likely that we can all agree on a candidate.
I would be very disappointed if this process were now to devolve into a
npoc versus ncuc fight to get 'our own candidate' in. If we are to get an
NCSG person on the board, we need to all get behind a candidate with the
strongest chance of success. Divided we fall.
What are the constructive steps we can now take to get the strongest
possible candidate onto the Board? (and by 'strongest', I mean candidate
most likely to succeed, as both our candidates so far were very strong,
imho.)
As I see it we can either:
1) Come up with a new candidate and/or propose a new process - possibly a
new election run-off either with our candidate already proposed or not
2) Wait for CSG to suggest both a new candidate and process
3) Retain the current Board member as we can't agree on either a person or
a new process
Option 1 would seem to give us the strongest opportunity to influence
events. How do we achieve it?
We all made and honourably kept to an agreement re. our previous two
candidates. That agreement is now completed. Let's make a new one.
Maria
On 3 June 2014 08:57, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
> Hi Klaus - i do think it is a poor use of resources to ask for a vote
> when it is clear the candidate is not supported: if you have other
> information suggesting that the vote would succeed, please do share it so
> we can assess whether a call for a vote would be productive. In the
> meantime, i think a better use of resources is to focus on how to secure an
> agreed candidate, including a process if necessary.
> Avri is also correct in relation to the understanding of the agreement for
> candidates.
> Joy
>
> On 3/06/2014 10:01 a.m., Klaus Stoll wrote:
>
> Dear Rafik
>
> Yes you are right, I did read the email wrong, it was Joy who said it, I
> apologize.
>
> Still the argument if mine stands and I think Sam deserves a vote.
>
> Sorry again
>
> Yours
>
> Klaus
>
> On 6/2/2014 10:40 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
>
> Hi Klaus,
>
> >
> >Was this then also "a poor use of our precious few resources?" (Rafik).
>
> It is not me who said that.
>
> Rafik
>
> >
> > On 6/2/2014 7:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Joy,
> >>
> >> for the end of game, it depends which election process we will agree
> with CSG , I suspect that they may suggest what they already proposed for
> next elections (when they thought we could elect a board member with the
> first 3 rounds), it seems more complex version of what Avri proposed
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Rafik
> >>
> >> 2014-06-02 14:22 GMT+09:00 joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>
> <joy at apc.org>>:
> >>>
> >>> thanks for the updates - as Stephanie requests, yes, it would be good
> to
> >>> have reasons
> >>> Klaus, I also do not understand the rationale of proposing a candidate
> >>> that CSG has made clear they will not support - is this not a poor use
> >>> of our precious few resources?
> >>> meanwhile, any thoughts on the end game here?
> >>>
> >>> joy
> >>>
> >>> On 2/06/2014 5:20 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >>> > why not, did they give a reason?
> >>> > steph
> >>> > ________________________________________
> >>> > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> <
> pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>
> <pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <
> aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org> <aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
> >>> > Sent: June 1, 2014 12:01 PM
> >>> > To: Avri Doria
> >>> > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> >>> > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate
> >>> >
> >>> > From what I can tell, the CSG have clearly indicated that they will
> not support Sam. Is there any reason to believe that there may be a
> splinter constituency within them that we don't know about?
> >>> >
> >>> > If not, I don't understand the rationale behind putting Sam up in a
> vote against a candidate of theirs. Klaus..., could you please elaborate on
> this?
> >>> >
> >>> > Thanks.
> >>> >
> >>> > Amr
> >>> >
> >>> > Sent from mobile
> >>> >
> >>> >> On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org> <avri at acm.org>> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hi,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Perhaps he did not have a chance for stray votes, just as i never
> had a
> >>> >> chance to go up against NOTA in a third round. He was selected as
> the
> >>> >> compromise candidate and that did not work. Now we move on.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Yes, we disagree.
> >>> >> This is something the rest of the PC will have to weigh in on.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> avri
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> On 01-Jun-14 16:53, Klaus Stoll wrote:
> >>> >>> Dear Colleagues
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>> On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>> >>>> Hi,
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is not
> going
> >>> >>>> to get their votes.
> >>> >>> to get their votes.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see if
> there
> >>> >>> are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance to
> collect
> >>> >>> stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to
> pick 2
> >>> >>> votes up, he was well received by some.
> >>> >>>> First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the
> previous
> >>> >>>> candidates are qualified to run.
> >>> >>> Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the due
> >>> >>> process hostage?
> >>> >>>> Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates
> >>> >>> See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day!
> >>> >>>> And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i
> >>> >>>> suggested.
> >>> >>> We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided!
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Yours
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Klaus
> >>> >>>> avri
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>> On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote:
> >>> >>>>> Dear Friends
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We should
> still put
> >>> >>>>> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of votes
> on him.
> >>> >>>>> We might be n for a pleasant surprise.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Yours
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> Klaus
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>> >>>>>> Hi Everybody,
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam
> candidate.
> >>> >>>>>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing those
> kind of
> >>> >>>>>> news.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we should
> be more
> >>> >>>>>> proactive in this regard.
> >>> >>>>>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board member to
> impose
> >>> >>>>>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if
> they will
> >>> >>>>>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to work
> on that
> >>> >>>>>> before.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> looking to hear your comments.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Rafik
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> >>>>>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>
> <met at msk.com> <mailto:met at msk.com <met at msk.com> <mailto:met at msk.com>
> <met at msk.com>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00
> >>> >>>>>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19
> May
> >>> >>>>>> 2014
> >>> >>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> >>> >>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Rafik,
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG concluded
> that we
> >>> >>>>>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are
> >>> >>>>>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. I
> will let
> >>> >>>>>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Steve
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> >>> >>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>]
> >>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven
> >>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription -
> 19
> >>> >>>>>> May 2014
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Rafik
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com
> <mailto:met at msk.com> <met at msk.com>
> >>> >>>>>> <mailto:met at msk.com <met at msk.com> <mailto:met at msk.com>
> <met at msk.com>>>:
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik,
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking
> further
> >>> >>>>>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points.
> We are
> >>> >>>>>> to meet again next Friday.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Steve
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> >>> >>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>]
> >>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM
> >>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven
> >>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription -
> 19
> >>> >>>>>> May 2014
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Hi Steve,
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam
> >>> >>>>>> candidature?
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Best Regards,
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Rafik
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> >>> >>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>>:
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve,
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Rafik
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com
> <mailto:met at msk.com> <met at msk.com>
> >>> >>>>>> <mailto:met at msk.com <met at msk.com> <mailto:met at msk.com>
> <met at msk.com>>>:
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Rafik,
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> For circulation to NCSG.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Steve
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> >>>>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine [
> mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> >>> >>>>>> <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org
> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> <mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>>]
> >>> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM
> >>> >>>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes
> >>> >>>>>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
> >>> >>>>>> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
> >>> >>>>>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de
> <mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de> <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
> >>> >>>>>> <mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de
> <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de> <mailto:Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>
> <Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de>>);
> >>> >>>>>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com
> <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com> <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>
> >>> >>>>>> <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com
> <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com> <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>
> <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>; marilynscade at hotmail.com
> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com> <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> >>> >>>>>> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com> <marilynscade at hotmail.com>>;
> harris at cabase.org.ar <mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar> <harris at cabase.org.ar>
> >>> >>>>>> <mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar <harris at cabase.org.ar>
> <mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar> <harris at cabase.org.ar>>
> >>> >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
> <gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <gnso-secs at icann.org>>
> >>> >>>>>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May
> 2014
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Dear all,
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held
> with Sam
> >>> >>>>>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Kind regards
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> Nathalie
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>> >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>> >
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140603/af7c8211/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list