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

Wed Aug 19 15:02:14 EEST 2015

Hi,

It appears to me like we have given Rafik no clear instructions on how to proceed on this issue. The longer we delay, the greater the urgency we will create in approaching a deadline where we need a vice-chair from the NCPH. We?re still stuck on the process to select one, instead of actually doing the selecting.

Several points have been raised on this growing thread regarding the process, and it looks like we have a bit of divergence on whether to proceed with the CSG suggestion for a process, or ask to modify it.

I?ve been trying to dig up some of the points raised, but if I have left any out, please raise them again:

1. Interviewing candidates should become a standard practice.

2. If the NCPH will be suggesting both a council vice-chair along with a potential chair, they should be considered together.

3. Begin the voting cycle with a vote against vs. a vote for procedure.

The third point is obviously the contentious issue we are trying to resolve. We haven?t heard from everybody on this issue, so we could wait until we do. An alternative solution may be to respond to Steve?s email by explaining the logic behind starting with ?vote against?. If I have understood his email correctly, he communicated that fact that the CSG didn?t understand the reason for voting in this matter. An explanation from us may find them agreeable to the concept.

So which one of the two options would the PC like to move forward with? Is there a third option that I have overlooked? One way or another, we really do need to resolve this ASAP.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 14, 2015, at 6:18 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 