[NCSG-PC] Board Seat 14/ appointment process

Sun Jul 15 06:49:23 EEST 2018

While clearly no one else sees the issue here - I think we still need to discuss the possibility that without some change in wording, this is literally probably not legal.

As discussed previously, as an agreement between two SGs, it is absolutely fine. But if does not fall back to the old procedure when consensus cannot be reached, then it tries to change the definition of the voting franchise (which is defined in the bylaws).

David

> On 14 Jul 2018, at 3:36 am, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I have not received any other feedback. This has been discussed since March 2018. Other than David no one has raised any other concerns.  I am going to inform CSG that we adopted this process.
> 
> Farzaneh
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:30 AM Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
> Dear Rafik,
> 
> I totally concur based on the rationale given.
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> Poncelet
> 
> On 12 June 2018 at 07:26, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi ,
> 
> Thanks Farzaneh, I concurr with your explanations and rationale.
> @Ayden with regard to statement of Interest, I am thinking if we can put that as annex and maybe develop more like some set questions and so on. just to not emphasize one information compared to others.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> Le mar. 12 juin 2018 à 01:14, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> a écrit :
> Thanks very much for sharing this, Farzaneh. Please find attached some suggested edits. In particular, I would like to broadly define what information should be contained within the Statement of Interest sought from each candidate. There is no implied criticism here (to be clear, I am not suggesting that past statements were inadequate) - just wanting to make sure we capture certain information in the future in the interest of transparency. I have also re-worded one sentence to do with the NCSG consulting with members - all the CSG needs to know is we come to a consensus as a stakeholder group, how is up to us...
> 
> Best wishes, Ayden
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On 11 June 2018 5:59 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks David.
>> 
>> CSG got back to us and they are happy with the procedure as is with a minor change in the document I have attached.
>> 
>> We need to discuss this in more detail. On the one hand, we cannot change CSG internal procedure. How would we feel if they wanted to change our internal procedure? On the other hand what you are raising has been an issue within the community.
>> 
>> As to NCA, NCA has an advisory role anyhow in the council as well.If it doesn't provide an advantage (and let's face it, sometimes NCAs would work against us or would work against both NCSG and CSG) then why not keep the role advisory?
>> 
>> I am not disagreeing. I am just putting these questions out there for the veterans to tell us why we should not accept the procedure as is.
>> 
>> When I was at the WT on GNSO bylaws changes, we insisted on giving NCA a role in the empowered community when it came to appointments. This was because as we argued, NCA could take you out of a deadlock. We argued the same here, but CSG did not accept the argument. Considering that NomCom appointments recently to the GNSO have been almost disasterous (for example they appointed a government person to GNSO!!) I wonder if we want them fully involved with the process.
>> 
>> We might continue this discussion with CSG depending on the feedback I receive here, so please keep the feedback coming, but please also provide solutions that can be a middle way of what they want and what we want.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Farzaneh
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 2:30 PM, David Cake <dave at davecake.net <mailto:dave at davecake.net>> wrote:
>> My apologies for taking a while to comment on this.
>> 
>> I admit to disliking this draft, it has significantly changed from the old procedure and none of the changes seem positive to me.
>> 
>> The NCA is effectively rendered irrelevant. Included as an adviser is meaningless, as far as I can tell. While the NCA offers no particular advantage to NCSG, I think it is a definite step back in terms of creating an open procedure. .
>> 
>> And it effectively removes the vote of individual councillors entirely. NCSG only reluctantly adopted binding councillors individual votes as a counter tactic to the CSG, and this procedure enshrines that permanently, effectively saying there is no hope that the CSG will have any internal democracy, so we shouldn’t bother with the potential for it. And it entirely lacks any procedure for coming to an outcome if full consensus can’t be found, other than rinse and repeat.
>> 
>> If it was to be adopted, we would at least need a new procedure to determine how leadership consensus will be determined, if there is a minority opinion.
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> 
>>> On 27 Mar 2018, at 10:31 am, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> all
>>> 
>>> here is the second draft of board appointment procedure. CSG accepted NCA to be involved with the process but have an advisory role. It also accepted to have elections but vote as a block (NCSG and CSG)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Let me know what you think.
>>> 
>>> Farzaneh
>>> <Board-Seat14-NCSG-Proposal .docx>_______________________________________________
>>> 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>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
> http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ <http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/>
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180715/2081c7b3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180715/2081c7b3/attachment.sig>