[PC-NCSG] board candidate

[Maria Farrell]

Hi Rudi,

It's the NCSG PC's job to elect or appoint people to roles so afaik it's
our job to sort this out.

m


On 23 March 2014 11:29, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:

> dear all,
>
> reading through this mailexchanges it seems to me we are missing a well
> defined process (procedure). When looking into the NCSG charter I did not
> find immediately an answer to that question ... So can someone help me
> getting a text clarifying what the rights of NCSG are wrt the nomination
> process ?
>
> Rudi Vansnick
> NPOC chair Policy Committee
> NPOC treasurer
> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
> www.npoc.org
>
> Op 23-jan.-2014, om 11:16 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for keeping the dialogue rolling.
>
> I think we have a few alternatives.  And we need to figure out what the
> issues really is.
>
> A. Is the CSG so in love with BillG that they want him or nobody?
>
> B. Or is the CSG, or at least some of its leadership, so against the
> rumored candidate, that they will do anything including deadlock to keep
> her from getting onto the Board?
>
> I think the response we make depends on our analysis.
>
> We have a few alternative:
>
> - not field a nominee and then vote None of the above.  If we all do that,
> we force the deadlock and take bill off the table.  this probably won't
> work and and will reuslt in Bill wining with partial support.  But a
> statement would be made.
>
> - pick a nominee
>
> -- Marie Laure wants to nominate Sam, and some have indicated a desire to
> nominate me.  I assume Sam is willing and I remain willing to be nominated.
>
> -- if B above is the case, that makes a case for picking someone other
> than me.  Then again we need to determine whether all of the NCSG voters
> would be willing to vote for Sam, or else this would just work to confirm
> BillG on the first ballot.
>
> -- if A above is the case, we should pick the one who has the best chance
> to picking off at least one of their voters in a contest to see which block
> of voters breaks first.
>
> Now, the NCSG is easier to break up than the CSG, since we do not enforce
> party discipline. And some of us, don't think BillG is all that bad and
> might be convinced tomorrow morning that he will try harder i nhis next
> term.  I had a conversation with him the other day and was convinced that
> on at least the NTIA /IANA issue his mind is still open.
>
> Just some random thoughts.
>
> avri
>
>
> avri
>
>
> On 23-Mar-14 10:47, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We're talking about this topic at today's policy meeting, right? I just
> wanted to fwd my thoughts. I think, out of principle, we need to take a
> firm stand in this election. The CSG have informed us that we can either
> back their candidate or go into a deadlock. If we back down, it will be an
> unfortunate precedent, and will encourage the CSG to take this position
> repetitively.
>
> Last time around, we had some Board appointed councillors, which we
> thankfully don't have now. I know we're scheduled to speak to Bill tomorrow
> morning, and I would have liked to meet him, but this should be a matter of
> principle. I hope we can reach a full consensus on this, and would
> appreciate hearing thoughts.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140323/9da5d557/attachment.html>