[NCSG-PC] Board Seat 14 Nomination Procedures and Timeline

[Johan Helsingius]

Dear Lori,

I totally understand and agree with prioritizing your health and
day job.

My mentioning of "standing up to Becky" was in response to what I
understood, based on our discussion, was your concern with Matthew.
Seems I misunderstood you - my apologies!

Board members don't, as a rule, disagree with each other in public,
but behind the scenes there are heated discussions. We feel Mark
is currently still too inexperienced and lacks the gravitas to be
effective in the high-pressure board environment. In our interview
with Mark he also didn't convince us of him having the required
management skills and experience, nor the knowledge about the
peculiarities of the ICANN community and more specifically the NCPH
nuances. Unlike Mark, Matthew has actually shown he possesses all the
attributes that the ICANN bylaws list as requisites that need to be
demonstrated by Board Members a

I am not quite sure about who you are referring to with "our Board
incumbents", but I am occasionally reminded of the fact that English
is my third language.

I also disagree with the view that granting a 3rd term to a Board Member
should be based on extraordinary performance. The experience,
position and credibility within the board built up during the previous
terms is very valuable, and should not be wasted lightly. I feel that
unless there are serious concerns about the functioning of a board
member, we should prioritise giving these individuals preference over
someone unproven.

I agree there is a bigger issue, not just with the 2018 agreement but
in the cooperation within the NCPH. I really feel we need to bring back
the intercessional meetings or some other way to jointly discuss the
issues. I fear resolving those issues will take too long to provide
help for our current issue with the board seat 14.

In my 1-on-1 with Sally Costerton she expressed her serious concern
about how missing the deadline will reflect badly on all of ICANN,
and could be used against the whole multistakeholder model. Thus
I feel there is real time pressure to get the board seat issue
resolved.

We would also like to better understand your reasons for rejecting
Matthew, and what it would take for you to accept him. We are therefore
looking forward to a constructive discussion.

With kind regards,

	Julf


On 19/04/2023 17:20, Lori Schulman wrote:
> Dear Julf,
> 
> Thank you for your patience with my recovery.  It has been a slog and with INTA's Annual Meeting in Singapore coming up, I have had to prioritize my health and my organization's meeting over anything else.
> 
> We appreciate that you have nominated Rafik per the procedures of the 2018 agreement.  The CSG ExCom reserves our right to interview Rafik as we are trying to avoid a "battle of the candidates" at this juncture.   I had asked a question about NCSG's concerns over Mark's inability to "stand up to" Becky.  I had mentioned that we do not feel that this is a criterion upon which we agree.  We would like to discuss this with NCSG ExCom in further detail as we have not witnessed the incumbent standing up to Becky either...at least not in public.  Becky has obvious strengths as a Board member but that should not be affecting our decisions about who should be representing us.  We had a very productive meeting with our Board incumbents last week and expect that all representatives have reached a point where they have something to offer.   We expect that Mark will fit right in and are sticking with our support of his candidacy.
> 
> That said, we believe that there is a bigger issue to be solved, that is the failure of the 2018 agreement to prevent another stalemate.   The way the procedure works, we could become entangled in the "battle of candidates" indefinitely.  This wastes a lot of time and effort.
> 
> I had drafted some proposed deal points that could potentially break stalemates in the future.    I included them in one of our earlier messages but have not heard back on any of them.  The CSG has improved the draft since that first message and we are finalizing a proposal that we hope the NCSG will consider.  The deal benefits both sides of the house with each potentially having a candidate in place for 9 years.   Once we have approved it internally, we will forward for NCSG's review and, hopefully, a full NCPH discussion follow.  You can expect this proposal shortly.  I will revert back with an exact date.
> 
> Granting a 3rd term to a Board Member should be based on extraordinary performance.  Our sides of the house have not agreed on what the standards of that performance are.  That is a failure of governance and should be corrected.  We are aware that the deadline is coming however, we would offer that we work out the long term issues while continuing to discuss the pros and cons of the current roster of Mark and Matthew.   If we are truly stalemated, we will interview others, starting with Rafik.  At that point, we would offer another candidate too.  Let's use that as a last resort.  We would rather miss the deadline and solve our longer term issues than rush to reappoint the incumbent.
> 
> We are aware that the NomCom may be affected by our decision in terms of geographic balance.  We are committed to not impeding the process for others.  However, we must make this choice in our own interests at an appropriate pace.
> 
> With kind regards,
>   
> Lori S. Schulman
> Senior Director, Internet Policy
> International Trademark Association (INTA)
> +1-202-704-0408, Skype:  LSSchulman
> lschulman at inta.org, www.inta.org
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johan Helsingius <julf.helsingius at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 9:33 AM
> To: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>
> Subject: Fwd: Board Seat 14 Nomination Procedures and Timeline
> 
> Just to be sure, also sent from my gmail address.
> 
> 
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: Board Seat 14 Nomination Procedures and Timeline
> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:30:56 +0200
> From: Johan Helsingius <julf at Julf.com>
> To: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>
> CC: Cole, Mason (Perkins Coie) <MCole at perkinscoie.com>, Tim Smith <tim.smith at cipa.com>, csg-excomm at icann.org <csg-excomm at icann.org>, Mohr, Susan <Susan.Mohr at lumen.com>, Brian King <brian.king at clarivate.com>, philippe.fouquart at orange.com <philippe.fouquart at orange.com>, NCSG EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
> 
> Hi Lori,
> 
> I hope you are fully recovered - long covid is a real hassle.
> 
> Just wanted to check on where we are with board seat 14, as the deadline is getting very close. From what I hear there hasn't been any contact with Rafik for setting up an interview or asking questions.
> 
> As you know, we still think Matthew is the best candidate, and considering how close we are to the deadline, I really think reappointing him for one more term is best option.
> 
> 	Julf
>