[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Tue Feb 28 08:09:06 EET 2017
Hi,
we can suggest nomination period between Wednesday 1st March and Friday
10th March, assuming that all candidates will be in Copenhagen.
Best,
Rafik
2017-02-27 23:27 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
> In terms of timeline, I'd suggest we try to get nominations in before
> Copenhagen and perhaps use ICANN 58 as a time to get to know the candidates
> better, perhaps invite them to our PC or regular SG meeting etc. Let's use
> the less than perfect timing to our advantage!
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Sent*: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:06 PM
> *To*: "avri at acm.org" <avri at acm.org>
> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat
> Selection Process
>
> Hi Avri,
>
> thanks for the suggestion,
>
> so we have now:
> - we cannot accept CSG proposal.
> - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel
> starting (Wednesday?)
>
> 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 gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two
> * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole
> house.
> * 2nd round if one get 8 then 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 PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we
> get our act together.
>
> we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that.
> can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
> 2017-02-24
> 21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria <avri at acm.org>:
>>
>>
>>
>> some minor typo corrections
>>
>> 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 gets 8 then done, if not second round between top
>> two
>
> * 2nd round if one get 8 then 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 PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we
>> get our act together.
>>
>> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> > 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 <mailto: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>
>> > >> <mailto: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>
>> > >> <mailto: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>
>> > >>> <mailto: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>
>> > >>> <mailto: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> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > >>> From: *Greg Shatan* <gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> > >>> <mailto: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>
>> > >>> <mailto: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_RaHGu
>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>> > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>
>> > >>>
>> > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu
>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing
>> > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHG
>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/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> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>> > <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>> _______________________________________________
>> > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>> > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>> > <mailto:Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org>
>> > >>> <mailto: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>
>> > >>> <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>
>> > <mailto: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>
>> > >>> <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:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>> > <tel:+44%207712%20472987>
>> > >>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> 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:%2B%2044%20771%202472987>
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > 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>
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170228/3cd24cd0/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list