CWG IANA Stewardship transitions - member selection
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/>
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> 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
Trends, Commentary, Perspective. Stay tuned to cirablog.ca <http://www.cirablog.ca/>
www.cira.ca
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/>____
__ __
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/>____
__ __
There is a certain logic to Byron's comments, but not sufficiently so to disturb my view. Ultimately I would be content with the decision of Council members whichever that is. I didn't have the luxury of being having been able to attend the Council Meeting, thanks to technical problems with my local airline, so I'm at a slight disadvantage relating to the qualitative assessment of the candidiates that may have gone on in the call. I understood the vote to be a 'sounding' of our opinions. (It wasn't a secret ballot) But it seems we now have two slates on the table .. if we want Council to make a simple and quick decision, wny not put the possible two slates to, as Byron puts it "a free and fair vote". And I'm content with Council's decision, whichever one of the two it might be, would represent our interests well. On 10/01/2014 02:20 PM, Byron Holland wrote:
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/>____
__ __
Hi All, I am firmly with Byron here. We conducted a poll, and we have a result - so lets go with that result. Its a simple result to defend if criticised by anyone, as it is based on simple majority. Remember that 2 of the 4 of us on the ICG are from AP region, and given all 4 of us are likely to be observers on this CCWG as well, I would argue that the AP region is already richly represented. This totally ameliorates the geo-diversity debate imho. We have a heap of work to do, so +1 to Byrons comment "Lets accept our own vote and move on." Cheers Keith On 2/10/2014 2:20 a.m., Byron Holland wrote:
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/>____
__ __
.
Hi Keith & Everyone, My problem is that we did not state at the start that the poll result would be taken as the final answer. If we had said this, I would have protested on the grounds that it is not a good way of achieving diversity/a good mix of complementary skills/regional diversity etc. The result is also too dependent on voter turnout. I suggest that we do a quick vote on whether we A. Go with the poll result B. Go with the 'Young-Eum alternative' In addition, I think that we should ask the ccNSO processes WG (or it's current equivalent) to develop a better process for next time. Kind regards Lesley Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Oct 2014, at 01:31, "Keith Davidson" <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi All,
I am firmly with Byron here. We conducted a poll, and we have a result - so lets go with that result. Its a simple result to defend if criticised by anyone, as it is based on simple majority.
Remember that 2 of the 4 of us on the ICG are from AP region, and given all 4 of us are likely to be observers on this CCWG as well, I would argue that the AP region is already richly represented. This totally ameliorates the geo-diversity debate imho.
We have a heap of work to do, so +1 to Byrons comment "Lets accept our own vote and move on."
Cheers
Keith
On 2/10/2014 2:20 a.m., Byron Holland wrote:
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/>____
__ __
.
On 10/02/2014 06:22 AM, Lesley Cowley wrote:>
My problem is that we did not state at the start that the poll result would be taken as the final answer.
Indeed. In fact, isn't it the case that was stated is that this would be a way of creating a short list of 7 from the original 'long-list' which Councillors would then choose a final 5 on a telephone conference? Or did I misunderstand the process? I would have expected an election poll to use ICANN's ballot server. I'm travelling at the moment so I don't have easy access to the original email from Bart (as I think it was) announcing the request seeking our preferences. Perhaps someone could assist me here? aid this, I would have protested on the grounds that it is not a good way of achieving diversity/a good mix of complementary skills/regional diversity etc. The result is also too dependent on voter turnout.
I suggest that we do a quick vote on whether we A. Go with the poll result B. Go with the 'Young-Eum alternative'
In addition, I think that we should ask the ccNSO processes WG (or it's current equivalent) to develop a better process for next time.
Kind regards Lesley Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Oct 2014, at 01:31, "Keith Davidson" <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi All,
I am firmly with Byron here. We conducted a poll, and we have a result - so lets go with that result. Its a simple result to defend if criticised by anyone, as it is based on simple majority.
Remember that 2 of the 4 of us on the ICG are from AP region, and given all 4 of us are likely to be observers on this CCWG as well, I would argue that the AP region is already richly represented. This totally ameliorates the geo-diversity debate imho.
We have a heap of work to do, so +1 to Byrons comment "Lets accept our own vote and move on."
Cheers
Keith
On 2/10/2014 2:20 a.m., Byron Holland wrote:
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/>____
__ __
.
Dear All,
My problem is that we did not state at the start that the poll result would be taken as the final answer.
Lesley is right. The process states: "Based on the individual Councilor rankings of the candidates, the secretariat will prepare a list of the top 7 candidates and reports to the Council on 24 September. After closure of the regular meeting on 25 September, the Council will select the five (5) members on the CWG." Kind regards, ]{atrina
If we had said this, I would have protested on the grounds that it is not a good way of achieving diversity/a good mix of complementary skills/regional diversity etc. The result is also too dependent on voter turnout.
I suggest that we do a quick vote on whether we A. Go with the poll result B. Go with the 'Young-Eum alternative'
In addition, I think that we should ask the ccNSO processes WG (or it's current equivalent) to develop a better process for next time.
Kind regards Lesley Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Oct 2014, at 01:31, "Keith Davidson" <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi All,
I am firmly with Byron here. We conducted a poll, and we have a result - so lets go with that result. Its a simple result to defend if criticised by anyone, as it is based on simple majority.
Remember that 2 of the 4 of us on the ICG are from AP region, and given all 4 of us are likely to be observers on this CCWG as well, I would argue that the AP region is already richly represented. This totally ameliorates the geo-diversity debate imho.
We have a heap of work to do, so +1 to Byrons comment "Lets accept our own vote and move on."
Cheers
Keith
On 2/10/2014 2:20 a.m., Byron Holland wrote:
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/>____
__ __
.
Dear colleagues, I like Lesley's suggestion in order to decide this. Regards Margarita Margarita Valdés Cortés Legal & Business Manager NIC Chile - University of Chile www.nic.cl +5629407700
El 02-10-2014, a las 2:22, Lesley Cowley <lesley-cowley@hotmail.co.uk> escribió:
Hi Keith & Everyone,
My problem is that we did not state at the start that the poll result would be taken as the final answer.
If we had said this, I would have protested on the grounds that it is not a good way of achieving diversity/a good mix of complementary skills/regional diversity etc. The result is also too dependent on voter turnout.
I suggest that we do a quick vote on whether we A. Go with the poll result B. Go with the 'Young-Eum alternative'
In addition, I think that we should ask the ccNSO processes WG (or it's current equivalent) to develop a better process for next time.
Kind regards Lesley Sent from my iPhone
On 2 Oct 2014, at 01:31, "Keith Davidson" <keith@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi All,
I am firmly with Byron here. We conducted a poll, and we have a result - so lets go with that result. Its a simple result to defend if criticised by anyone, as it is based on simple majority.
Remember that 2 of the 4 of us on the ICG are from AP region, and given all 4 of us are likely to be observers on this CCWG as well, I would argue that the AP region is already richly represented. This totally ameliorates the geo-diversity debate imho.
We have a heap of work to do, so +1 to Byrons comment "Lets accept our own vote and move on."
Cheers
Keith
On 2/10/2014 2:20 a.m., Byron Holland wrote:
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/>____
__ __
.
participants (7)
-
Byron Holland -
Katrina Sataki -
Keith Davidson -
Lesley Cowley -
Margarita Valdes -
Nigel Roberts -
Young-eum Lee