[PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
Avri Doria
avri
Thu Aug 27 15:40:40 EEST 2015
We might as well do whatever CSG wants and get it over with. That is
probably what we will do in the end anyway.
avri
On 27-Aug-15 03:49, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> can we make some progress here?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-08-19 21:02 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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>
> > >>>>>>>> <mailto: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>
> > >>>>>>>> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> > >>>>>>>> <mailto: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>
> > >>>>>>>> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>>> 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 <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
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> 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 <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 <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
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list