[PC-NCSG] [SPAM]Re: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
Joy Liddicoat
joy
Tue Sep 8 12:09:01 EEST 2015
Thanks Rafik and Bill,
As already mentioned I am happy with that approach
Joy Liddicoat
Sent from my phone
> On 8/09/2015, at 20:20, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>> On Sep 8, 2015, at 9:17 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Makes sense to me
>>
>> 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?
>
> Yes, and I also think it?d be nice if the NCPH started to communicate again on list, conversations have all moved into a private Cc, which doesn?t sit well.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> *********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org
> Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
> *********************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150908/3fc3e42e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list