[PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak
Tue Jun 3 13:47:00 EEST 2014
Hi Maria,
thanks,
I expect CSG to come soon with proposals for the election. I see emergency
to have our counter-proposal regarding the election process. that is
something we should work on
Best,
Rafik
2014-06-03 18:32 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>:
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e343f3ee/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list