[PC-NCSG] board candidate

Avri Doria avri
Sun Mar 23 07:28:28 EET 2014 

hi,

If you are speaking of the NCSG nomination process:

I do not think so.

We have a charter that was argued bottom-up and it created the mechanism
for appointments and even includes methods of appeal.

There is a difference between direct democracy and bottom-up where a set
or processes are created for doing things.

We have not set up NCSG as a peoples direct democracy where we take
every decision back to the full list.  There is a difference you know.

But you can certainly appeal this using the charter mechanisms.

If you are speaking of the CSG process:

They have a subsidiary right to pick the methods they like.

If you are speaking of the the Board election  mechanism where 7 people 
elect one Board seat, and 13 elect another is brain dead. But that was a 
recommendation from representative of the GNSO that the Board accepted.


avri

On 23-Mar-14 12:56, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Does this process make the multistakeholder, bottom up consensus deal
> a dead duck?  If so, worth pointing out at this inflection point in
> time when folks profess to care...



On Mar 23, 2014, at 12:35 AM,
> Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Amr's conclusions and suggestions for moving forward.
>> WE gotta stop letting CSG push us around, even if it is the easiest
>> thing to do.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The charter gives the PC the responsibility to do selections for
>>> functions.
>>>
>>> The charter also gives the EC the duty to create processes, if it
>>> so desires. The absence of a EC formal determined policy, the PC
>>> gets to do stuff by rough consensus as the charter indicates.
>>>
>>> Discussion until rough consensus IS a process.  In some
>>> organizations it is the ONLY process.
>>>
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23-Mar-14 11:38, Rudi Vansnick wrote:
>>>> Thanks Maria for the clarification. I think it would be good if
>>>> we could make it an official process to avoid the discussions
>>>> in the future.
>>>>
>>>> Rudi Vansnick NPOC chair Policy Committee NPOC treasurer
>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org> Tel :
>>>> +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 www.npoc.org
>>>> <http://www.npoc.org>
>>>>
>>>> Op 23-jan.-2014, om 11:31 heeft Maria Farrell
>>>> <maria.farrell at gmail.com <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>> het
>>>> volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org> Tel :
>>>>> +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>> <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032> www.npoc.org
>>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 23-jan.-2014, om 11:16 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>> <mailto: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>
>>>>> http://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
>
>
> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list