[PC-NCSG] board candidate

[Amr Elsadr]

Yeah?, that was me. I said I?d be happy to nominate you, and I still am. I?ve been waiting until the NCPH decided on a process and we discussed it internally within NCSG.

If it?s alright, I?ll hold off on this nomination until I arrive in Singapore. My flight leaves in 3 hours.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 20, 2014, at 10:57 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I was never actually nominated - just made myself available for nomination - and some were kind of enough to say they would nominate me. Now we have Sam as a nominee.  So if I were to be nominated, we would have to come up with a method of choosing in the NCSG.
> 
> But thanks for asking.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 20-Mar-14 17:48, "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> I did not follow all the discussion due to my specific circumstances.
>> My understanding was that Avri will be a candidate for this GNSO
>> board seat. What has changed?
>> 
>> wolfgang
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria
>> Gesendet: Do 20.03.2014 10:23 Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy
>> Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I was just trying to be amenable. And just because I am fine with
>> something doesn't mean anything.
>> 
>> You know  "play along to get along," my new motto.
>> 
>> I am fine with us not offering a candidate.  I agree, if they are
>> voting as a block it is a farce.  So why play?
>> 
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 20-Mar-14 16:16, William Drake wrote:
>>> Avri
>>> 
>>> On Mar 20, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Glen caught up with me and asked about our candidate, if any.  I
>>>> told we would have and answer by the weekend.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a
>>>> bad thing and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should
>>>> go long to get along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow
>>>> everyone.
>>> 
>>> So secret even I don't know who you're talking about.
>>> 
>>>> But at this point, we should make a decision tomorrow (Friday)
>>>> about what we want to do, one way or another.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, on the house list I'd been arguing for an open field in
>>> case of other candidates and against direction at the SG level so
>>> the six are not locked into a bloc and a candidate could
>>> conceivably pick off a constituency.  But then you said what we did
>>> last year was fine.  So they announced that they will again
>>> nominate one, vote as a directed bloc, and Bill's their guy.  So at
>>> this point, it is mathematically impossible for an NCSG candidate
>>> to beat him, which sort of raises the question of why both voting,
>>> but whatever.  So our choices now are either a) one or more of the
>>> NCSG councilors vote for their candidate, or b) none of them
>>> do...not sure what the bylaws say if no candidate gets 8.
>>> 
>>> BD
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 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