[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process

avri doria avri at acm.org
Fri Feb 24 02:33:55 EET 2017


Hi,

I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal

- NCA is not to removed from any part of the process

- we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.

- as many nominees as come forward in a week.

- 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two

- 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against NOTA

- 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our
act together.

- then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA  talk until we get
our act together.

avri

On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote:
>
> Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or
> not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative
> version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next week?
>
> And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next week?  or
> two weeks from Monday?   Probably would be useful to have the CSG and
> NCSG nomination periods run in parallel.  Agree with CSG whether
> should be nomination and/or self nomination.
>
> In the interim start work on the process?
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG quickly. at
>> least covering the topic of nomination.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>     Hi Matt,
>>
>>     thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this topic.
>>     I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the process
>>     and adjust the whole timeline.
>>     how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for
>>     now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we
>>     don't have so much time for a long nomination period.
>>
>>     I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press
>>     us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are
>>     non-negotiable with regard to the process.
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>     2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org
>>     <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>:
>>
>>         Thanks Rafik
>>
>>         Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal with it
>>         and we are running out of time.
>>
>>         First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, which
>>         was not really discussed further.  Then we had some general
>>         discussion about the need to do something on the Board
>>         selection process.  People voiced their views on different
>>         aspects of the process and there was concern over the
>>         timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others
>>         please jump in as I may have missed some important
>>         aspects).   Markus announced he wanted to continue in the
>>         role; I announced I was going to run.  Then the CSG proposal
>>         for a process was circulated on Thurs AM.  There seemed to be
>>         general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal.
>>
>>         I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a process and
>>         timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at
>>         least the initial stages of the process are underway.
>>
>>         Matthew
>>
>>
>>         On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>         Hi everyone,
>>>
>>>         We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on board
>>>         seat election. 
>>>         First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what or not
>>>         agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended
>>>         intersessional?
>>>
>>>         We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points
>>>         such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. 
>>>
>>>         I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far from our
>>>         expectations.
>>>         There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it by end
>>>         of this week but we do need to be ready.
>>>
>>>         Best,
>>>
>>>         Rafik 
>>>
>>>         ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>         From: "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>         <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>         Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM
>>>         Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process
>>>         To: <ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>         <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>>
>>>         Cc:
>>>
>>>             All,
>>>
>>>             We probably need a different mailing list to finish
>>>             working on the Board Seat selection process, and a small
>>>             group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think this
>>>             is the only active mailing list with both sides of the
>>>             NCPH on it.
>>>
>>>             We basically have no time to work this out, and we've
>>>             already started the process without knowing what it is
>>>             exactly, since we have now received nominations.
>>>
>>>             In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures
>>>             previously circulated, I'm also attaching the following
>>>             for consideration:
>>>
>>>             1.  Some bullet-points from an exchange between CSG and
>>>             NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft process.
>>>             2.  The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a
>>>             revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from
>>>             Bylaws and GNSO Procedures.
>>>             3.  A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section
>>>             11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats
>>>             13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the Bylaws), and
>>>             Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section 11.3(f).
>>>
>>>             A few thoughts and comments:
>>>
>>>             A.  We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go
>>>             through a process that is contemplated to take 21 weeks
>>>             (just to go through).  Talk about building the airplane
>>>             in the air.
>>>
>>>             B.  At the Intersessional, we discussed possible
>>>             adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any
>>>             decisions.  It's not clear to me whether Staff is
>>>             preparing a further revised draft.  I'll ask.
>>>
>>>             C.  If any of our groups have not already done so, we
>>>             should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP
>>>             (though it would be nice to know the end of the
>>>             nomination period).
>>>
>>>             D.  Without making any judgments, the CPH process and
>>>             the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different when
>>>             it comes to voting.
>>>
>>>             E.  We should figure out how to get this process agreed
>>>             as quickly as possible.  Given the unusual
>>>             circumstances, we don't need to use this process as
>>>             precedent for any future process.  We just need to get
>>>             through this selection.  One approach is for NCSG to
>>>             respond to the draft sent at the end of the
>>>             Intersessional.  However, given the gap between that and
>>>             the bullet-points, it might just be better to arrange a
>>>             call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball forward.
>>>
>>>             Thanks for reading,
>>>
>>>             Greg
>>>
>>>             P.S.  It's not all that important how we got here, but
>>>             nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO Procedures
>>>             were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline
>>>             for naming the Director was changed from one month to
>>>             two months (briefly) and then six months prior to being
>>>             seated.  (The GNSO Procedures will need to be updated in
>>>             any event, since the Bylaws references are now
>>>             obsolete.))  The draft bullet-points repeated this error.
>>>
>>>             B.  Since we are doing this with very little time
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             *Greg Shatan
>>>             *C: 917-816-6428
>>>             S: gsshatan
>>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>             ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>             From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>>>             Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM
>>>             Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board Selection Process
>>>             To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>             <mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>             NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants,
>>>
>>>             The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed
>>>             interim Board Selection Process based closely on the
>>>             Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House. 
>>>             Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes
>>>             from the CPH document.
>>>
>>>             A Google Docs version can be found here, where any
>>>             suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but
>>>             everyone has "edit"
>>>             rights): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>>>             <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>>>
>>>             We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board
>>>             Seat process and then revisit afterward before making it
>>>             a permanent rather than "interim" process.
>>>
>>>             This has not been reviewed by the membership of the IPC,
>>>             BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on
>>>             this basis, given the short amount of time we have for
>>>             this year.
>>>
>>>             We look forward to your thoughts.
>>>
>>>             Thanks!
>>>
>>>             Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams)
>>>
>>>             *Greg Shatan
>>>             *C: 917-816-6428 <tel:%28917%29%20816-6428>
>>>             S: gsshatan
>>>             Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <tel:%28646%29%20845-9428>
>>>             gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>>>             Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>>             <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>>>             https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>             <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>         NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>>         -- 
>>         ------------
>>         Matthew Shears
>>         Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>         Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>         + 44 771 2472987 <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> -- 
> ------------
> Matthew Shears
> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> + 44 771 2472987
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus




More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list