[NCSG-PC] Board Seat 14/ appointment process

[farzaneh badii]

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> 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>
> 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
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180611/0a57dee1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN 61.revised. Board seat 14[1][1].docx_WUKedit.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 20454 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180611/0a57dee1/attachment.docx>