[PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for

Fri Aug 14 19:18:20 EEST 2015

Hi Ed,

It is steve metaltiz not steve del bianco :)

Rafik
On Aug 15, 2015 1:10 AM, "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thanks for clarifying.
>
> Doesn't surprise me. The man probably did his own stress test on surgical
> outcomes and how his operation would impact ICANN's accountability going
> forward and impact on the NTIA approval of the transition proposal. Stress
> test number 36B. :)
>
> I'm sure you are on top of this, and thanks, but does the fact the NCPH
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:59 PM, Rafik <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ed,
> >
> > He sent email 2 days ago asking about NCSG position.
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> >
> >> Le 15 Aug 2015 ? 00:53, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> a ?crit :
> >>
> >> No objection here.
> >>
> >> I believe Steve is recovering from surgery at the moment so we might
> want to give him a few days before engaging him with this.
> >>
> >> Ed
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:31 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I think we are actually saying the same thing. Ultimately, we?ll have
> to work out a method where both SGs agree on a candidate (the consensus I
> was referring to). This is pretty much what you referred to as A2 and B2.
> Thanks for spelling that out so clearly BTW. :)
> >>>
> >>> The point I was trying to make is that with a little dialogue between
> the two SGs on who is agreeable to both halves of the NCPH prior to any
> official elections taking place, then it won?t matter what method we use
> (A1, B1, A2 or B2). Effectively, we?ll have gone through the A2/B2 cycle
> first anyway. So I see no need to delay this year?s election to work out
> which method we use. If others would prefer we communicate the merits of
> A2/B2 to Steve, I won?t object. Lets just get on with it.
> >>>
> >>> I hope that clarifies where I?m coming from.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> Amr
> >>>
> >>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I find it difficult to understand that the logical difference between
> >>>> the two methods is not apparent
> >>>>
> >>>> A1 - is CSG favorite but NCSG most hated
> >>>> B 1- is NCSG favorite but CSG most hated
> >>>>
> >>>> A2 -  is NCSG and CSG doesn't mind
> >>>> B2 -  is CSG and NCSG doesn't mind
> >>>>
> >>>> In one regualr case the 2nd round is A1 vs B1 and neither gets the
> >>>> supermajority needed.
> >>>> In the voice out the least favorite case 2nd round is A2 vs B2 and
> >>>> someone might get the supermajority
> >>>>
> >>>> And if you need to go the third round
> >>>>
> >>>> In one case A1 or B1 against no one - no one wins
> >>>> in the other case A2 or B2, against no one - some might actually get
> >>>> supermajority.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have used the regular method several times and mostly ended up
> >>>> deadlocked.
> >>>>
> >>>> good luck
> >>>>
> >>>> avri
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 14-Aug-15 15:54, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the unacceptable
> first, or just moving directly to electing the most desirable is of little
> consequence, which is why I am in favour of just moving this along. Making
> these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t really work without creating a
> consensus. So cutting to the chase and communicating directly with the CSG
> on candidacy (council chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best,
> whichever method we agree ultimately end up using.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Amr
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely
> attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've
> come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council
> procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I
> actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on
> from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me
> as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is
> limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to
> add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as
> long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH
> affairs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> avri
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response
> to
> >>>>>>>> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only,
> >>>>>>>> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let
> them
> >>>>>>>> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list
> .
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct
> >>>>>>>> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Rafik
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
> >>>>>>>> election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
> >>>>>>>> still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
> >>>>>>>> we can start on that sooner rather than later.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
> >>>>>>>>> May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
> >>>>>>>> the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
> >>>>>>>> I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
> >>>>>>>> list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
> >>>>>>>> message Avri sent to that list)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s
> election, our agreement to a formal
> >>>>>>>> process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
> >>>>>>>> discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
> >>>>>>>> be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
> >>>>>>>> counterparts.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
> >>>>>>>> records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
> >>>>>>>> lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
> >>>>>>>> to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Rafik
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Amr
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
> >>>>>>>> <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
> >>>>>>>> to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
> >>>>>>>> amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
> >>>>>>>> proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
> >>>>>>>> about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
> >>>>>>>> maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
> >>>>>>>>>> for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
> >>>>>>>> becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
> >>>>>>>> first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
> >>>>>>>>>> I should answer Steve soon about our position.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Rafik
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
> >>>>>>>> back more.
> >>>>>>>>>> Bill
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
> >>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> >>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
> >>>>>>>> guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
> >>>>>>>> the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a
> newbie...)
> >>>>>>>>>>> SP
> >>>>>>>>>>> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
> >>>>>>>> <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
> >>>>>>>> than a few CSG and CPH members.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If so then voila, no?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
> software.
> >>>>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150815/1e7c0ce5/attachment-0001.html>