[PC-NCSG] CCT

[Tapani Tarvainen]

Hi Stephanie,

While I don't like the gender card much either, now that BC has
played it already, should we just let them get away with it?
I can't see any effective alternative countermove to offering
our own female candidate, however much we might prefer Jeremy.

Trying to play with Jeremy's lost/delayed paperwork does not
make for a strong hand in this game, I'm afraid, and saying
there's no strong consumer advocate in the group may even be
counterproductive.

But I've been wrong before, and won't stop you or anybody
else from trying to restart the fight for Jeremy.

Tapani


On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 01:25:11PM -0500, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:

> Calm down Ed, we are just looking at it from a different perspective, that
> of them ignoring proven consumer advocacy experience.  I agree his
> application was weak, but I doubt that his performance would be.  We have
> yet to figure out why they did not receive his material.....an interesting
> question.
> I don't actually like playing the gender card, but that is just me. I do
> feel we should let Stacie hang around ICANN a while before throwing her in
> off the deep end.
> cheers Steph
> 
> On 2016-01-16 13:17, Edward Morris wrote:
> >I'm going to take this as a "no" to attempting to combat the BC attempt to
> >subvert the approved progress and get one of their members selected on the
> >basis of gender diversity.
> >Feel free to write to Steve and Thomas and tell them they screwed up
> >ideologically in the initial selection. Good luck with that. I will
> >bluntly state that one of the problems with Jeremy's application is his
> >paperwork wasn't in order by the deadline (I don't know why: it doesn't
> >really matter) and his motivation statement was IMHO quite poor in
> >comparison to many others. Compare it to those selected, such as Carlos.
> >Were I a neutral, I would not have chosen him on the basis of the quality
> >of his application. Yes, he has the background and the knowledge and the
> >skills to be a superior CCT member. It's a shame his application did not
> >demonstrate that.
> >I have no idea why anyone would respond to my initial post by saying let's
> >nominate Jeremy. My post was a specific proposal to counter the BC effort.
> >If they want to open the door to adding women to balance the gender
> >composition of the CCT I wanted a female candidate from our community to
> >be considered along with another BC candidate. Jeremy is male. Frankly, I
> >viewed our proposed letter as more of an effort to block an additional CSG
> >member from being chosen for CCT as it was an effort to actually an effort
> >to get one of ours on. Chose two women or chose none.
> >I'll fully support anyone who wants to write a letter to Steve and Thomas
> >suggesting that Jeremy should be added to the CCT for reasons of
> >ideological diversity or as an expert. In my view, that would be a
> >complete waste of time but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. If we do
> >nothing and the CSG gets a female member added due to diversity this PC
> >will have once again failed our membership on this entire CCT selection
> >process. So be it. I'm only 1 of 11.
> >Best,
> >Ed
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >*From*: "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org>
> >*Sent*: Saturday, January 16, 2016 5:57 PM
> >*To*: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> >*Subject*: Re: [PC-NCSG] CCT
> >Any chance he could be added as a expert?
> >
> >avri
> >
> >
> >On 16-Jan-16 12:43, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> >> I think we have an excellent case for Jeremy.....show me the other
> >> consumer advocates on the list. Stacy is very green to be thrown into
> >> this fight if you ask me. She may be excellent but this is going to
> >> be heavy hitting, I dont think it is quite fair when we have noone
> >> there besides Carlos and possibly Carlton to support her.
> >> Stephanie
> >>
> >> On 2016-01-16 4:15, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> >>> I'm afraid Ed is right here: we don't have a good case for
> >>> pushing Jeremy at this point, but if we advocate Stacie
> >>> we might succeed in either getting her in or blocking
> >>> a BC candidate.
> >>>
> >>> Would someone have the time to write it up?
> >>>
> >>> Tapani
> >>>
> >>> On Jan 15 16:23, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Kathy,
> >>>>
> >>>> What's the hook?
> >>>>
> >>>> Simply saying we don't like the decision won't work. The BC has come
> >>>> up with diversity. It's a shame Jeremy is not female but...
> >>>>
> >>>> My fear is if we don't do anything the BC will get their request. If
> >>>> we send another female they probably won't change anything or they
> >>>> could take both. Given they have already been accused of taking too
> >>>> many men...
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you really think there is a chance they would take another man or
> >>>> that suggesting they do would stop them from saying that the BC was
> >>>> correct and taking the female?
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed
> >>>>
> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 15 Jan 2016, at 16:03, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think we should write our own letter to get Jeremy Malcolm on CCT
> >>>>> - a real consumer advocate with genuine, longtime credentials. If
> >>>>> the BC can do it, we should too...
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> K
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 1/15/2016 9:34 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi everybody,
> >>>>>> ?
> >>>>>> Sorry to bother you again.
> >>>>>> ?
> >>>>>> The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet
> >>>>>> another commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing
> >>>>>> gender diversity. Their letter requesting special consideration is
> >>>>>> attached.
> >>>>>> ?
> >>>>>> NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties.
> >>>>>> ?
> >>>>>> Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the
> >>>>>> process that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our
> >>>>>> responsibility to aggressively represent our members.
> >>>>>> ?
> >>>>>> Should we send ? a similar letter citing both gender
> >>>>>> diversity and the lack of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e.
> >>>>>> we agree with the BC on the lack of gender diversity but believe
> >>>>>> Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon the
> >>>>>> underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the
> >>>>>> lack of age diversity of selectees.
> >>>>>> ?
> >>>>>> I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is ? it
> >>>>>> the EC or PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are
> >>>>>> seriously underrepresented on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is
> >>>>>> successful.
> >>>>>> ?
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> ?
> >>>>>> Ed
> >>>>>> ?
> >>>>>> ?