[PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
Amr Elsadr
aelsadr
Tue Sep 8 15:30:17 EEST 2015
Hi,
Agree with Bill and Rafik, and very much share Bill?s sentiments regarding the use of the NCPH list.
Thanks.
Amr
> On Sep 8, 2015, at 10:20 AM, 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
> *********************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list