[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Fri Feb 24 07:31:55 EET 2017
Hi,
Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions
I guess we say:
- we cannot accept CSG proposal.
- However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
parallel starting next week Monday
- Our counter-proposal is:
- NCA is not to removed from any part of the process
- there must 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 the 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.
if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG.
Best,
Rafik
2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org>:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170224/d0fb74f7/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list