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

Thu Aug 27 10:49:31 EEST 2015

Hi everyone,

can we make some progress here?

Best,

Rafik

2015-08-19 21:02 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> 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
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150827/a6256745/attachment-0001.html>