[PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak
Tue Sep 8 10:17:05 EEST 2015
Hi,
with GNSO council chair election coming, we have to finalize this.
can I respond to CSG that:
*we would agree with their proposal while we would like to know why they
don't support vote against in first round.*
*we will discuss the procedure of election starting next year with
the alternating between NCSG and CSG as approach*
*Adding as conditions: Interviewing candidates should become a standard
practice.If the NCPH will be suggesting both a council vice-chair
along with a potential chair, they should be considered together.*
we should start a new thread about GNSO council chair process and if how we
shall proceed: getting someone from NCPH or we will keep the statu quo?
Best,
Rafik
2015-08-30 18:14 GMT+09:00 Joy Liddicoat <joy at liddicoatlaw.co.nz>:
> Hi - Rafik I am happy with your initial suggestion - not sure if that
> verifies Avri's point or not ...
> Cheers
> Joy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PC-NCSG [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri
> Doria
> Sent: Friday, 28 August 2015 12:41 a.m.
> To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just
> what we all have time for
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150908/55d8fddf/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list