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

[Rafik Dammak]

hi everyone,

I am not sure if you all got this response from Greg to our proposal but
forwarding it anyway.
any comments to his questions? I can interpret that they are fine with the
deadline we set for the nominations while we have to work for the remaining
fo the process. I think that interview of candidates before the 1st round
is ok and we can do that during Copenhagen meeting.

Best,

Rafik

2017-03-02 1:42 GMT+09:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:

> Rafik and all,
>
> Some observations.
>
> First, I wonder if there is a better email list for this discussion, since
> this one is both under- and over-inclusive (I don't mind the
> over-inclusiveness, but some in NCPH SG/C leadership are not on this list).
>

we have the old NCPH list
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership and used for
previous elections. but I also saw a notification of yet another mailing
 list few days ago. the former may need to updated for officers from eacg SG


> Second, any approach we adopt for this cycle is "one time only," and we
> need to make a separate decision on a long-term approach.
>
> Comparing the two approaches:
>
> 1.  There are distinct differences in approach between the CPH process
> (adapted to the CSG proposal) and the NCSG proposal.  It's not as clear
> when there would be distinct differences in result.
>
> 2.  The biggest differences are: (a) participation of the NCA vs. not; (b)
> (super)majority voting of Councilors vs. need to agree (at the SG-to-SG
> level; "voices" come from Council seats vs. internal SG processes).  The
> NCSG process essentially works through the Council structure of the House,
> while CPH/CSG process essentially works through the House structure
> (without reference to Council).  For the sake of discussion, we can assume
> both are valid approaches.
>
> 3.  From these different approaches, I think the different results would
> occur when the leading candidate is not broadly acceptable.  Under the NCSG
> approach, with the NCA's participation a single vote from one SG, along
> with a unanimous vote from the other SG + the NCA is sufficient for victory
> (i.e., 5/6 of one SG could vote against a candidate, and that candidate
> would still win).  Under the CSG approach, one would need a positive
> position from both SGs (however arrived at within the SG) to select a
> director.  The NCSG approach is more likely to yield a result, but also
> capable of yielding a very divided result.  Deadlock can only result from
> (a) a "party-line" vote, (b) 1 Councilor from SG1 voting with SG2, while
> the NCA votes with SG1, or (c) a real scramble, where both SGs splinter,
> but neither mixed bloc can muster 8 votes.  The CSG approach is less likely
> to yield a result before deadlock, but less likely to yield a divided
> result (and divisions would be worked out within each SG).  In either case,
> deadlock is likely to yield a compromise candidate.
>
> Commenting on the NCSG proposal, aside from the overall difference in
> approach:
>
> 1.  We seem to be informally already in the nomination period, but I agree
> we need to have a hard date for the end of the period.  March 10 is
> probably OK, but we have to project out the remaining timeline.
>
> 2.  I think we need a better view of the candidates before any votes are
> taken.  I would suggest that interview calls take place before the first
> round, and that they be divided by SG.  A substitute (but not a great one,
> in my view) is to require written candidate statements before the first
> round.  If we do that, the candidates would be well advised to address
> their views on the key issues that occupy each SG and C (so we aren't left
> guessing on the issues most likely to drive support or lack of support).
>
> 3.  If we get to the point where NOTA beats the leader, we should have a
> timeline to resolve the issue before the director is seated in November.
> We should not contemplate leaving the seat open.  (We really would need to
> decide before the NomCom does, because the NomCom's options may change
> based on the geographic region of the NCPH Director.)  Alternatively, we
> could leave the sitting director in place until a decision is made, but
> this may create perverse incentives.
>
> 4. CSG Constituencies do not have PCs as far as I know.  CSG has an Excomm
> with 2 reps from each Constituency. At the Constituency level, IPC has
> "leadership" (officers + councilors).  Can't speak to BC and ISPCP off the
> top of my head. So the conference participants would need to be tweaked.
>
> At the risk of stating the obvious, we need to quickly resolve which of
> the two approaches to adopt.  Once we do that, the remaining issues are
> relatively minor.
>
> I have tried not to make a case for either approach in this email, but
> only to point out differences. However, I think we need some people to make
> a case for one approach or the other, and quickly, so that the powers of
> discussion and persuasion can work their magic and we can come to a
> agreement.
>
> So, I leave you at the end of this lengthy email with a question, *why is
> one proposal better than the other?*
>
> Greg
>
>
> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
> S: gsshatan
> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> After discussion within NCSG,  I would like to share our response:
>> - we cannot accept the current proposal.
>> - however, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in
>> parallel starting from Wednesday 1st March until Friday 10th March.
>>
>> Our proposal is:
>>   * NCA is not removed from any part of the process
>>   * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed.
>>   * as many nominees as coming 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.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-02-20 14:12 GMT+09:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> 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 <(917)%20816-6428>
>>> S: gsshatan
>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428>
>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Greg Shatan <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
>>>
>>>
>>> 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/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPp
>>> nL_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 <(917)%20816-6428>
>>> S: gsshatan
>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428>
>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list
>>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170309/616f8a3f/attachment.htm>