Dear All, On the face of it, there is a certain logic to Nigel's comments, however I disagree for the following reasons: 1) Either we believe in the outcome of the vote, or we do not. On the call there was much dissention about "qualitative" decisions to override the outcome of the vote, for which there was no consensus. Again, either we agree that the vote stands or not. If not, there are many good qualitative arguments for various formations of the membership in the CWG. We were not able to reach conclusion in the last fulsome discussion, which is why we should proceed with what is reasonable and established path - the outcome of a free and fair vote. 2) Geographic representation. I think there are two relevant points here: a) AP has 2 of 4 members on the ICG, so I think AP has good representation in the overall process. (Lets keep in mind NA has no representation on either group, whereas every other region is represented in the overall process) b) Geo is only one of the diversity requirements. As already mentioned, every region except NA is represented in the overall process. Other factors obviously weighed in on our voting outcome, such as non-ccNSO membership, which is absolutely fine. On the many axis of diversity, we are well covered across the 2 key working groups. 3) Why Govind? If it is strictly to have AP represented, why not Deena? Then at least we would have additional gender diversity and someone from the middle east which is not represented at all. And she is "only" one vote from Govind. My point here is not that we should pick Deena over Govind ( I am not making a preferential comment one way or another) but that from a qualitative perspective we could likely make a better case for her than him, but it leads us down the path of qualitative relativity. And we do not have agreement on what is preferred. Lets accept our own vote and move on. Byron -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Roberts [mailto:nigel@channelisles.net] Sent: October-01-14 12:06 AM To: ccnso-council@icann.org Cc: Young-eum Lee; Byron Holland Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] CWG IANA Stewardship transitions - member selection For the reasons previously stated in my earlier email, it will be no surprise that I agree with Young-eum, and that that would be my preferred option. But I am also keen to listen to what others think. (From Byron's email, I believe we appear to have agreement on the first four seats.) Nigel -- On 10/01/2014 01:43 AM, Young-eum Lee wrote:
All,
I agree that it is not possible to have a perfect representation of our broad community. However, I think we should at least have a discussion as to whether having 3 out of 5 members from the same region as being acceptable in terms of geographical diversity.
So far, the proposed selections according to a non-qualitative selection includes 3 members from the EU region.
Erick Iriarte (.pe, LAC, member ccNSO) 12 out of 13 ____
Lise Fuhr (.dk, EU, non-member) 11____
Vika Mpisane (.za, AF, member) 11____
Paul Kane (.ac, EU, non-member) 7____
Staffan Jonson (.se, EU, member) 6
I note that Nigel had taken geographical diversity into account and had proposed the following alternative, given that there was only 1 vote difference between #5 and #6.
Erick Iriarte (.pe, LAC, member ccNSO) 12 out of 13 ____
Lise Fuhr (.dk, EU, non-member) 11____
Vika Mpisane (.za, AF, member) 11____
Paul Kane (.ac, EU, non-member) 7____
Dr Govind (.in, AP, member) 5
I remember that when we were discussing the selection of ICG members there was a concern with having too many members from the same region and that concern was reflected in the final selection.
I know we are pressed for time, but I suggest that we allow the council members to comment before we move forward. My personal opinion is that I would prefer Nigel's suggestion, although I would not object to Byron's decision.
- kind regards, - Young-eum.
Young-eum Lee Dept. of Media Arts & Sciences <http://mas.knou.ac.kr/>, Korea National Open University <http://www.knou.ac.kr/> Dept. of Media Arts and Visual Contents <http://macgrad.knou.ac.kr/>, KNOU Grad School <http://grad.knou.ac.kr/> ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/> Council member <http://ccnso.icann.org/council-members.htm> Chairman, 7th Daum Open User Committee <http://blog.daum.net/openuser>
On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 8:10 AM, Byron Holland <byron.holland@cira.ca <mailto:byron.holland@cira.ca>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,____
__ __
After reflecting on our call last week, the difficult discussion, and having heard back from our RO colleagues, I am of the strong opinion that we will have to move forward with the candidates as selected by order of rank in voting.____
__ __
Our RO colleagues will not be able to put forward member and have therefore asked us to proceed with selecting all 5 members. Given there was little appetite or agreement on any type of qualitative selection and that most spoke in favour of simply allowing the vote to stand, this will be that path forward.____
__ __
No selection of 5 people will ever be a perfect representation of our broad community, however the top 5 to provide a widely diverse cross section of cc operators, both ccnso member and unaffiliated, as well as gender, size, business model, and geography.____
__ __
The top 5 ranked candidates are:____
__ __
Erick Iriarte (.pe, LAC, member ccNSO) 12 out of 13 ____
Lise Fuhr (.dk, EU, non-member) 11 ____
Vika Mpisane (.za, AF, member) 11____
Paul Kane (.ac, EU, non-member) 7____
Staffan Jonson (.se, EU, member) 6____
__ __
__ __
Unless there is a strong objection with equally strong supporting rationale, I propose we move forward with the members we most strongly voted for.____
__ __
Best regards,____
Byron____
*__ __*
*__ __*
*Byron Holland*, President & CEO____
Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA)____
Twitter: @cira001 <mailto:@cira001>____
Trends, Commentary, Perspective. Stay tuned to cirablog.ca <http://www.cirablog.ca/>____
www.cira.ca <http://www.cira.ca/>____
__ __