[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Wed Mar 1 14:58:18 EET 2017
Hi Ed,
Thanks for the message, yes this something we have to agree and act quickly
on it.
I think that was/should be nomination by others and within PC, but looking
to hear from others too. We got till 10th March to get nominees.
Best,
Rafik
2017-03-01 21:54 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net>:
> Thanks Rafik.
>
> One question; Are nominations within our group to be self nominations,
> nominations by others, both, and opened to the general membership or just
> members of the PC?
>
> I'm sorry to ask what may be basic questions but I haven't been involved
> in the Board selection process before and would just like to fully
> understand the process.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> *Sent*: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 12:49 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 everyone,
>
> since there was no objection, I will send our response to CSG and also our
> suggestion for nomination period to run from 1st March to 10th March .
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-02-27 23:05 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>> 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/20170301/211d4477/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list