Re: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board
Dear Jordan, Mathieu, All, First of all, thank you for expressing your concerns around this topic. As Joke indicated in her email the ccNSO Council has discussed and approved the timeline for the Board (and Council) nominations /selection at its 1 September meeting and also adopted a new Board Nomination Guideline (https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-nominations-icann-board-guideli ne-01sep16-en.pdf), which replaced the Board selection guideline from 2008 (https://ccnso.icann.org/about/guidelines-board-selection-procedure-08may08- en.pdf) First of all, although formally the current term of Board seat 11 ends at the AGM in 2017, the ccNSO Council worked under the premise that the (new) Board member will be involved in ICANN Board as of May of the year they take their seat. In this cycle it means that the ccNSO should have selected/nominated its Board member by the end of April 2017 at the latest. Further, it has become a standard practice (and is now included in the new Guideline on Board nominations) that the community has an opportunity to interact with candidates during our face-to-face meetings. In this case that would mean either at the Hyderabad meeting (November 2016) or Copenhagen meeting (March 2017). In both cases we need to allow for 6 weeks of nominations and additionally take into account the possibility of an election and run-off election by the members after the face-to face meeting. Taking these factors into account, and to avoid a rushed nomination and election process, the ccNSO Council decided to adopt the current timeline. In addition, I would like to point out that previous Board selection processes were organized in a similar time cycle and the call for nominations was sent out at the same time for the same reasons. Should be no surprises here. Regarding the point with respect to Board and Council candidates/members and their relationship with a ccTLD manager, I appreciate that point. However, I must note that this is not a simple issue and there are several opposite views on this. Neither the Bylaws, nor our internal procedures say that our representatives must work for a ccTLD. In case of the Board and Council elections an individual needs to be nominated and seconded by a ccTLD manager. That being said, what if the person leaves the ccTLD and starts working for another ccTLD, is that ok? If the person leaves the ccTLD and does not start working for another ccTLD, should we run a new round of election or ask the ccTLD to appoint a successor (which would be the case if we elected the person as an employee of the particular ccTLD)? What if the person leaves and starts working for, e.g., a gTLD? I think this is something we should consider not only in the context of Councillors or Board members but also in the context of our representatives on various working groups. So far we have dealt with such situations on a case by case basis and I believe we have always found a solution that is the best for our community. Personally I support the view that we elect people on the basis of their personal qualities and their willingness to serve the ccTLD community (provided there are no conflicts of interest that might cast doubts on person¹s actions). But I understand there are opposite views and welcome a discussion on these important issues. Answering Mathieu¹s question whether the ccNSO Council has discussed elections and the lack of volunteers yes, we have. But I would re-phrase Mathieu¹s concern slightly. I do not think it would be entirely correct to say that the absence of choice for members is a strong warning signal. The choice is not something that can and should be administratively or artificially imposed by somebody. It is up to the members to provide this choice. Why members do not step forward certainly is a strong warning signal. Lack of volunteers and volunteers fatigue is a constant concern. We have used to the extent of abused¹ the same people over and over again. I can understand why they do not volunteer for more work very well. I can only wholeheartedly thank everybody who contribute to the work of the ccNSO and hope that other members (and non-members) will be inspired by all those wonderful people who do a lot of heavy lifting on behalf of the ccTLD community! Thank you! Kind regards, ]{atrina From: <owner-ccnso-members@icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date: Wednesday 28 September 2016 09:54 To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Cc: <ccnso-members@icann.org>, <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board Dear Colleagues, I agree with Jordan that a discussion on this topic prior to the election / nomination would be required. In addition to the point he raises, I would add the issue of choice for members. If I¹m not mistaken, the last few Board seat elections took place without even a vote, due to a lack of candidates. We are fortunate to have two highly skilled and committed Board representatives today, but isn¹t the absence of choice for members a strong warning signal ? Maybe it could shared with this list whether it has already been discussed within the Council ? Best regards, Mathieu De : owner-ccnso-members@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org] De la part de Jordan Carter Envoyé : mercredi 28 septembre 2016 02:43 À : Joke Braeken Cc : ccnso-members@icann.org; ccnso-council@icann.org Objet : Re: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board Hi Joke, Council, fellow ccNSO members: Why the rush, is my short question? The board seat does not come up until 2017¹s AGM (more than a year away), and we have a meeting in Hyderabad coming up early November, a couple of weeks after the proposed close of nominations. It surely would make sense to let people discuss and talk with each other about the seat at the meeting, given the long time available. More significantly, we here at .nz think there needs to be a discussion about Board and Council candidates / members and their relationship with a ccTLD manager. There are a couple of examples in both places, Board and Council, of people leaving a ccTLD and remaining in place. I haven¹t formed a view about whether that¹s a good thing or not, but do think it would be reasonable for us to talk through, and before we have to deal with another round of ccNSO elections either to Council or Board. I am strongly opposed to a sudden nomination process like this when we have plenty of time to wait, discuss it at Hyderabad, agree some guidelines and then enter into an election closer to the time. What do others think? cheers, On 28 September 2016 at 00:08, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> wrote: Dear ccNSO members, Chris Disspain¹s term on the ICANN Board Seat 11 will expire at the ICANN Annual General Meeting 2016. The ccNSO is now opening a call for nominations to fill ICANN Board seat number 11. Below you will find all details related to the procedure for nominations and for seconding nominations. Nominations can be made as of Tuesday 27 September 2016, 00.00 UTC until Tuesday 18 October 2016, 23.59 UTC. Nominations can only be submitted to ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org> and will require verification. Templates for nominating and seconding nominations are provided below, and published here: https://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27sep16-en.htm The names of the nominees will be made public at http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations <http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations> Consult https://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27sep16-en.htm for details on the nomination process and the procedures/templates that apply. Kind regards, Joke Braeken Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board Date: 27 September 2016 The term of the ICANN Board seat number 11 expires at the ICANN AGM 2016 and a nomination process therefore needs to be launched. Should there be more than one candidate nominated for seat number 11, an election will be held. Bylaw Article IX section 3.9 <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#IX> states: "The ccNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 11 and 12 on the Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such selection must have affirmative votes of a majority of all the members of the ccNSO Council then in office. Notification of the ccNSO Council's selections shall be given by the ccNSO Council Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-8.4> and 12(1) <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-12.1> ." The 27 May 2016 Bylaws are not effective. The ccNSO Council and the ccNSO members have decided that before making the nomination of Directors, the ccNSO members shall be entitled to nominate and vote for candidates they wish the Council to nominate to the ICANN Board. Section 2(3) of Article VI of the Bylaws states "In carrying out their responsibilities to fill Seats 9 through 14, the Supporting Organizations shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-3> of this Article. At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region." Pursuant to this Bylaw, the candidate that receives the highest number of votes from ccNSO members will be nominated by the Council to the ICANN Board. Each member can nominate one candidate for seat 11 on the ICANN Board and each member can second one candidate. In order to nominate or second a candidate, a member must be a member of the ccNSO by 27 September 2016. Nominations can be made from 27 September 2016, 00.00 UTC until Tuesday 18 October 2016, 23.59 UTC. Nominations should be sent by e-mail to the Election Manager at the following e-mail address: ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org> PLEASE NOTE: If you send a Nomination or Second, you will receive an email from ICANN asking you to confirm that you have sent an email to ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org. For your Nomination or Second to be valid, responding to the email requesting confirmation is obligatory. Archives to be found at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations <http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations> Please use this template for nominations: Template for Nomination 1a. Full name of the candidate being nominated: 1b. E-mail address of the candidate being nominated: 1c. Country of which the candidate is a citizen: 2a. Full name of the nominator: 2b. E-mail address of the nominator: All nominations must be seconded by another ccNSO member. Please use this template for seconding nominations: Template for Seconding a Nomination 1 Full name of nominator whose candidate is being seconded: 2a. Full name of the candidate being seconded: 2b. E-mail address of the candidate being seconded: 3a. Full name of the seconder: 3c. E-mail address of the seconder: Accepting Nominations The Election Manager will confirm the nomination, by sending an e-mail to the candidate requesting their acceptance. The candidate will then have a chance to submit their CV and/or a mission statement. Nominations will be archived at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations <http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations> Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO <https://twitter.com/ccNSO> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/> http://ccnso.icann.org <http://ccnso.icann.org> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz <http://www.InternetNZ.nz> A better world through a better Internet
Dear all, I agree with Katrina completely!! Regards Margarita Margarita Valdés Cortés, MBM-UAI Legal & Business Manager NIC Chile - University of Chile www.nic.cl +56229407734
El 28-09-2016, a las 09:45, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> escribió:
Dear Jordan, Mathieu, All,
First of all, thank you for expressing your concerns around this topic.
As Joke indicated in her email the ccNSO Council has discussed and approved the timeline for the Board (and Council) nominations /selection at its 1 September meeting and also adopted a new Board Nomination Guideline (https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-nominations-icann-board-guidelin...), which replaced the Board selection guideline from 2008 (https://ccnso.icann.org/about/guidelines-board-selection-procedure-08may08-e...)
First of all, although formally the current term of Board seat 11 ends at the AGM in 2017, the ccNSO Council worked under the premise that the (new) Board member will be involved in ICANN Board as of May of the year they take their seat. In this cycle it means that the ccNSO should have selected/nominated its Board member by the end of April 2017 at the latest.
Further, it has become a standard practice (and is now included in the new Guideline on Board nominations) that the community has an opportunity to interact with candidates during our face-to-face meetings. In this case that would mean either at the Hyderabad meeting (November 2016) or Copenhagen meeting (March 2017). In both cases we need to allow for 6 weeks of nominations and additionally take into account the possibility of an election and run-off election by the members after the face-to face meeting.
Taking these factors into account, and to avoid a rushed nomination and election process, the ccNSO Council decided to adopt the current timeline.
In addition, I would like to point out that previous Board selection processes were organized in a similar time cycle and the call for nominations was sent out at the same time for the same reasons. Should be no surprises here.
Regarding the point with respect to Board and Council candidates/members and their relationship with a ccTLD manager, I appreciate that point. However, I must note that this is not a simple issue and there are several opposite views on this.
Neither the Bylaws, nor our internal procedures say that our representatives must work for a ccTLD. In case of the Board and Council elections an individual needs to be nominated and seconded by a ccTLD manager.
That being said, what if the person leaves the ccTLD and starts working for another ccTLD, is that ok? If the person leaves the ccTLD and does not start working for another ccTLD, should we run a new round of election or ask the ccTLD to appoint a successor (which would be the case if we elected the person as an employee of the particular ccTLD)? What if the person leaves and starts working for, e.g., a gTLD?
I think this is something we should consider not only in the context of Councillors or Board members but also in the context of our representatives on various working groups. So far we have dealt with such situations on a case by case basis and I believe we have always found a solution that is the best for our community.
Personally I support the view that we elect people on the basis of their personal qualities and their willingness to serve the ccTLD community (provided there are no conflicts of interest that might cast doubts on person’s actions).
But I understand there are opposite views and welcome a discussion on these important issues.
Answering Mathieu’s question whether the ccNSO Council has discussed elections and the lack of volunteers – yes, we have. But I would re-phrase Mathieu’s concern slightly. I do not think it would be entirely correct to say that the absence of choice for members is a strong warning signal. The choice is not something that can and should be administratively or artificially imposed by somebody. It is up to the members to provide this choice. Why members do not step forward certainly is a strong warning signal. Lack of volunteers and volunteers fatigue is a constant concern. We have used to the extent of ‘abused’ the same people over and over again. I can understand why they do not volunteer for more work very well. I can only wholeheartedly thank everybody who contribute to the work of the ccNSO and hope that other members (and non-members) will be inspired by all those wonderful people who do a lot of heavy lifting on behalf of the ccTLD community!
Thank you!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
From: <owner-ccnso-members@icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date: Wednesday 28 September 2016 09:54 To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Cc: <ccnso-members@icann.org>, <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board
Dear Colleagues,
I agree with Jordan that a discussion on this topic prior to the election / nomination would be required.
In addition to the point he raises, I would add the issue of choice for members. If I’m not mistaken, the last few Board seat elections took place without even a vote, due to a lack of candidates. We are fortunate to have two highly skilled and committed Board representatives today, but isn’t the absence of choice for members a strong warning signal ?
Maybe it could shared with this list whether it has already been discussed within the Council ?
Best regards, Mathieu
De : owner-ccnso-members@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org] De la part de Jordan Carter Envoyé : mercredi 28 septembre 2016 02:43 À : Joke Braeken Cc : ccnso-members@icann.org; ccnso-council@icann.org Objet : Re: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board
Hi Joke, Council, fellow ccNSO members:
Why the rush, is my short question?
The board seat does not come up until 2017’s AGM (more than a year away), and we have a meeting in Hyderabad coming up early November, a couple of weeks after the proposed close of nominations.
It surely would make sense to let people discuss and talk with each other about the seat at the meeting, given the long time available.
More significantly, we here at .nz think there needs to be a discussion about Board and Council candidates / members and their relationship with a ccTLD manager.
There are a couple of examples in both places, Board and Council, of people leaving a ccTLD and remaining in place.
I haven’t formed a view about whether that’s a good thing or not, but do think it would be reasonable for us to talk through, and before we have to deal with another round of ccNSO elections – either to Council or Board.
I am strongly opposed to a sudden nomination process like this when we have plenty of time to wait, discuss it at Hyderabad, agree some guidelines and then enter into an election closer to the time.
What do others think?
cheers,
On 28 September 2016 at 00:08, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> wrote: Dear ccNSO members,
Chris Disspain’s term on the ICANN Board Seat 11 will expire at the ICANN Annual General Meeting 2016. The ccNSO is now opening a call for nominations to fill ICANN Board seat number 11. Below you will find all details related to the procedure for nominations and for seconding nominations.
Nominations can be made as of Tuesday 27 September 2016, 00.00 UTC until Tuesday 18 October 2016, 23.59 UTC.
Nominations can only be submitted to ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org and will require verification. Templates for nominating and seconding nominations are provided below, and published here: https://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27sep16-en.htm
The names of the nominees will be made public at http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations Consult https://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27sep16-en.htm for details on the nomination process and the procedures/templates that apply.
Kind regards,
Joke Braeken
Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board Date: 27 September 2016
The term of the ICANN Board seat number 11 expires at the ICANN AGM 2016 and a nomination process therefore needs to be launched. Should there be more than one candidate nominated for seat number 11, an election will be held.
Bylaw Article IX – section 3.9 states: "The ccNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 11 and 12 on the Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such selection must have affirmative votes of a majority of all the members of the ccNSO Council then in office. Notification of the ccNSO Council's selections shall be given by the ccNSO Council Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1)." The 27 May 2016 Bylaws are not effective.
The ccNSO Council and the ccNSO members have decided that before making the nomination of Directors, the ccNSO members shall be entitled to nominate and vote for candidates they wish the Council to nominate to the ICANN Board.
Section 2(3) of Article VI of the Bylaws states "In carrying out their responsibilities to fill Seats 9 through 14, the Supporting Organizations shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 of this Article. At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region."
Pursuant to this Bylaw, the candidate that receives the highest number of votes from ccNSO members will be nominated by the Council to the ICANN Board.
Each member can nominate one candidate for seat 11 on the ICANN Board and each member can second one candidate. In order to nominate or second a candidate, a member must be a member of the ccNSO by 27 September 2016. Nominations can be made from 27 September 2016, 00.00 UTC until Tuesday 18 October 2016, 23.59 UTC.
Nominations should be sent by e-mail to the Election Manager at the following e-mail address: ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org
PLEASE NOTE: If you send a Nomination or Second, you will receive an email from ICANN asking you to confirm that you have sent an email to ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org. For your Nomination or Second to be valid, responding to the email requesting confirmation is obligatory.
Archives to be found at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations
Please use this template for nominations:
Template for Nomination 1a. Full name of the candidate being nominated: 1b. E-mail address of the candidate being nominated: 1c. Country of which the candidate is a citizen: 2a. Full name of the nominator: 2b. E-mail address of the nominator:
All nominations must be seconded by another ccNSO member. Please use this template for seconding nominations:
Template for Seconding a Nomination 1 Full name of nominator whose candidate is being seconded: 2a. Full name of the candidate being seconded: 2b. E-mail address of the candidate being seconded: 3a. Full name of the seconder: 3c. E-mail address of the seconder:
Accepting Nominations The Election Manager will confirm the nomination, by sending an e-mail to the candidate requesting their acceptance. The candidate will then have a chance to submit their CV and/or a mission statement.
Nominations will be archived at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations
Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz
A better world through a better Internet
I also agree with Katrina. Furthermore, this has never been an issue with re-electing Mr Silber, who to my knowledge has not been directly connected to a ccTLD for some considerable time (at least the last election, if not the one before that). On 28/09/16 14:21, Margarita Valdes wrote:
Dear all, I agree with Katrina completely!! Regards Margarita
Margarita Valdés Cortés, MBM-UAI Legal & Business Manager NIC Chile - University of Chile www.nic.cl <http://www.nic.cl> +56229407734
El 28-09-2016, a las 09:45, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> escribió:
Dear Jordan, Mathieu, All, First of all, thank you for expressing your concerns around this topic. As Joke indicated in her email the ccNSO Council has discussed and approved the timeline for the Board (and Council) nominations /selection at its 1 September meeting and also adopted a new Board Nomination Guideline (https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-nominations-icann-board-guidelin...), which replaced the Board selection guideline from 2008 (https://ccnso.icann.org/about/guidelines-board-selection-procedure-08may08-e...) First of all, although formally the current term of Board seat 11 ends at the AGM in 2017, the ccNSO Council worked under the premise that the (new) Board member will be involved in ICANN Board as of May of the year they take their seat. In this cycle it means that the ccNSO should have selected/nominated its Board member by the end of April 2017 at the latest. Further, it has become a standard practice (and is now included in the new Guideline on Board nominations) that the community has an opportunity to interact with candidates during our face-to-face meetings. In this case that would mean either at the Hyderabad meeting (November 2016) or Copenhagen meeting (March 2017). In both cases we need to allow for 6 weeks of nominations and additionally take into account the possibility of an election and run-off election by the members after the face-to face meeting. Taking these factors into account, and to avoid a rushed nomination and election process, the ccNSO Council decided to adopt the current timeline. In addition, I would like to point out that previous Board selection processes were organized in a similar time cycle and the call for nominations was sent out at the same time for the same reasons. Should be no surprises here.
Regarding the point with respect to Board and Council candidates/members and their relationship with a ccTLD manager, I appreciate that point. However, I must note that this is not a simple issue and there are several opposite views on this.
Neither the Bylaws, nor our internal procedures say that our representatives must work for a ccTLD. In case of the Board and Council elections an *individual* needs to be nominated and seconded by a ccTLD manager.
That being said, what if the person leaves the ccTLD and starts working for another ccTLD, is that ok? If the person leaves the ccTLD and does not start working for another ccTLD, should we run a new round of election or ask the ccTLD to appoint a successor (which would be the case if we elected the person as an employee of the particular ccTLD)? What if the person leaves and starts working for, e.g., a gTLD?
I think this is something we should consider not only in the context of Councillors or Board members but also in the context of our representatives on various working groups. So far we have dealt with such situations on a case by case basis and I believe we have always found a solution that is the best for our community.
Personally I support the view that we elect people on the basis of their personal qualities and their willingness to serve the ccTLD community (provided there are no conflicts of interest that might cast doubts on person’s actions).
But I understand there are opposite views and welcome a discussion on these important issues.
Answering Mathieu’s question whether the ccNSO Council has discussed elections and the lack of volunteers – yes, we have. But I would re-phrase Mathieu’s concern slightly. I do not think it would be entirely correct to say that the absence of choice for members is a strong warning signal. The choice is not something that can and should be administratively or artificially imposed by somebody. It is up to the members to provide this choice. Why members do not step forward certainly is a strong warning signal. Lack of volunteers and volunteers fatigue is a constant concern. We have used to the extent of ‘abused’ the same people over and over again. I can understand why they do not volunteer for more work very well. I can only wholeheartedly thank everybody who contribute to the work of the ccNSO and hope that other members (and non-members) will be inspired by all those wonderful people who do a lot of heavy lifting on behalf of the ccTLD community!
Thank you!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
From: <owner-ccnso-members@icann.org <mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Wednesday 28 September 2016 09:54 To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> Cc: <ccnso-members@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>>, <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board
Dear Colleagues,
I agree with Jordan that a discussion on this topic prior to the election / nomination would be required.
In addition to the point he raises, I would add the issue of choice for members. If I’m not mistaken, the last few Board seat elections took place without even a vote, due to a lack of candidates. We are fortunate to have two highly skilled and committed Board representatives today, but isn’t the absence of choice for members a strong warning signal ?
Maybe it could shared with this list whether it has already been discussed within the Council ?
Best regards,
Mathieu
*De :*owner-ccnso-members@icann.org <mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org> [mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org] *De la part de* Jordan Carter *Envoyé :* mercredi 28 septembre 2016 02:43 *À :* Joke Braeken *Cc :* ccnso-members@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>; ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> *Objet :* Re: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board
Hi Joke, Council, fellow ccNSO members:
Why the rush, is my short question?
The board seat does not come up until 2017’s AGM (more than a year away), and we have a meeting in Hyderabad coming up early November, a couple of weeks after the proposed close of nominations.
It surely would make sense to let people discuss and talk with each other about the seat at the meeting, given the long time available.
More significantly, we here at .nz think there needs to be a discussion about Board and Council candidates / members and their relationship with a ccTLD manager.
There are a couple of examples in both places, Board and Council, of people leaving a ccTLD and remaining in place.
I haven’t formed a view about whether that’s a good thing or not, but do think it would be reasonable for us to talk through, and before we have to deal with another round of ccNSO elections – either to Council or Board.
I am strongly opposed to a sudden nomination process like this when we have plenty of time to wait, discuss it at Hyderabad, agree some guidelines and then enter into an election closer to the time.
What do others think?
cheers,
On 28 September 2016 at 00:08, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear ccNSO members,
Chris Disspain’s term on the ICANN Board Seat 11 will expire at the ICANN Annual General Meeting 2016. The ccNSO is now opening a call for nominations to fill ICANN Board seat number 11. Below you will find all details related to the procedure for nominations and for seconding nominations.
*Nominations can be made as of Tuesday 27 September 2016, 00.00 UTC until Tuesday 18 October 2016, 23.59 UTC.*
Nominations can only be submitted to ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org> and will require verification.
Templates for nominating and seconding nominations are provided below, and published here: https://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27sep16-en.htm
The names of the nominees will be made public at http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations
Consult https://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27sep16-en.htm for details on the nomination process and the procedures/templates that apply.
Kind regards,
Joke Braeken
*Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board*
*Date: *27 September 2016
The term of the ICANN Board seat number 11 expires at the ICANN AGM 2016 and a nomination process therefore needs to be launched. Should there be more than one candidate nominated for seat number 11, an election will be held.
Bylaw Article IX – section 3.9 <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#IX> states:
"The ccNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 11 and 12 on the Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such selection must have affirmative votes of a majority of all the members of the ccNSO Council then in office. Notification of the ccNSO Council's selections shall be given by the ccNSO Council Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-8.4> and 12(1) <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-12.1>."
The 27 May 2016 Bylaws are not effective.
The ccNSO Council and the ccNSO members have decided that before making the nomination of Directors, the ccNSO members shall be entitled to nominate and vote for candidates they wish the Council to nominate to the ICANN Board.
Section 2(3) of Article VI of the Bylaws states "In carrying out their responsibilities to fill Seats 9 through 14, the Supporting Organizations shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-3> of this Article. At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region."
Pursuant to this Bylaw, the candidate that receives the highest number of votes from ccNSO members will be nominated by the Council to the ICANN Board.
Each member can nominate one candidate for seat 11 on the ICANN Board and each member can second one candidate.
In order to nominate or second a candidate, a member must be a member of the ccNSO by 27 September 2016.
Nominations can be made from 27 September 2016, 00.00 UTC until Tuesday 18 October 2016, 23.59 UTC.
Nominations should be sent by e-mail to the Election Manager at the following e-mail address: ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org>
PLEASE NOTE: If you send a Nomination or Second, you will receive an email from ICANN asking you to confirm that you have sent an email to ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org>. For your Nomination or Second to be valid, responding to the email requesting confirmation is _obligatory_.
Archives to be found at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations
Please use this template for nominations:
*Template for Nomination*
1a. Full name of the candidate being nominated:
1b. E-mail address of the candidate being nominated:
1c. Country of which the candidate is a citizen:
2a. Full name of the nominator:
2b. E-mail address of the nominator:
All nominations must be seconded by another ccNSO member.
Please use this template for seconding nominations:
*Template for Seconding a Nomination*
1 Full name of nominator whose candidate is being seconded:
2a. Full name of the candidate being seconded:
2b. E-mail address of the candidate being seconded:
3a. Full name of the seconder:
3c. E-mail address of the seconder:
*Accepting Nominations*
The Election Manager will confirm the nomination, by sending an e-mail to the candidate requesting their acceptance. The candidate will then have a chance to submit their CV and/or a mission statement.
Nominations will be archived at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ *
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz <mailto:jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz> | www.InternetNZ.nz <http://www.InternetNZ.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet/
I am in complete agreement with Katrina, and also subscribe to Nigel's comments as well... Best /Stephen -----Original Message----- From: owner-ccnso-council@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 9:55 AM To: Margarita Valdes <mvaldes@nic.cl>; Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Cc: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org>; ccnso-members@icann.org; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Re: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board I also agree with Katrina. Furthermore, this has never been an issue with re-electing Mr Silber, who to my knowledge has not been directly connected to a ccTLD for some considerable time (at least the last election, if not the one before that). On 28/09/16 14:21, Margarita Valdes wrote:
Dear all, I agree with Katrina completely!! Regards Margarita
Margarita Valdés Cortés, MBM-UAI Legal & Business Manager NIC Chile - University of Chile www.nic.cl <http://www.nic.cl> +56229407734
El 28-09-2016, a las 09:45, Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv <mailto:katrina@nic.lv>> escribió:
Dear Jordan, Mathieu, All, First of all, thank you for expressing your concerns around this topic. As Joke indicated in her email the ccNSO Council has discussed and approved the timeline for the Board (and Council) nominations /selection at its 1 September meeting and also adopted a new Board Nomination Guideline (https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-nominations-icann-board- guideline-01sep16-en.pdf), which replaced the Board selection guideline from 2008 (https://ccnso.icann.org/about/guidelines-board-selection-procedure-0 8may08-en.pdf) First of all, although formally the current term of Board seat 11 ends at the AGM in 2017, the ccNSO Council worked under the premise that the (new) Board member will be involved in ICANN Board as of May of the year they take their seat. In this cycle it means that the ccNSO should have selected/nominated its Board member by the end of April 2017 at the latest. Further, it has become a standard practice (and is now included in the new Guideline on Board nominations) that the community has an opportunity to interact with candidates during our face-to-face meetings. In this case that would mean either at the Hyderabad meeting (November 2016) or Copenhagen meeting (March 2017). In both cases we need to allow for 6 weeks of nominations and additionally take into account the possibility of an election and run-off election by the members after the face-to face meeting. Taking these factors into account, and to avoid a rushed nomination and election process, the ccNSO Council decided to adopt the current timeline. In addition, I would like to point out that previous Board selection processes were organized in a similar time cycle and the call for nominations was sent out at the same time for the same reasons. Should be no surprises here.
Regarding the point with respect to Board and Council candidates/members and their relationship with a ccTLD manager, I appreciate that point. However, I must note that this is not a simple issue and there are several opposite views on this.
Neither the Bylaws, nor our internal procedures say that our representatives must work for a ccTLD. In case of the Board and Council elections an *individual* needs to be nominated and seconded by a ccTLD manager.
That being said, what if the person leaves the ccTLD and starts working for another ccTLD, is that ok? If the person leaves the ccTLD and does not start working for another ccTLD, should we run a new round of election or ask the ccTLD to appoint a successor (which would be the case if we elected the person as an employee of the particular ccTLD)? What if the person leaves and starts working for, e.g., a gTLD?
I think this is something we should consider not only in the context of Councillors or Board members but also in the context of our representatives on various working groups. So far we have dealt with such situations on a case by case basis and I believe we have always found a solution that is the best for our community.
Personally I support the view that we elect people on the basis of their personal qualities and their willingness to serve the ccTLD community (provided there are no conflicts of interest that might cast doubts on person’s actions).
But I understand there are opposite views and welcome a discussion on these important issues.
Answering Mathieu’s question whether the ccNSO Council has discussed elections and the lack of volunteers – yes, we have. But I would re-phrase Mathieu’s concern slightly. I do not think it would be entirely correct to say that the absence of choice for members is a strong warning signal. The choice is not something that can and should be administratively or artificially imposed by somebody. It is up to the members to provide this choice. Why members do not step forward certainly is a strong warning signal. Lack of volunteers and volunteers fatigue is a constant concern. We have used to the extent of ‘abused’ the same people over and over again. I can understand why they do not volunteer for more work very well. I can only wholeheartedly thank everybody who contribute to the work of the ccNSO and hope that other members (and non-members) will be inspired by all those wonderful people who do a lot of heavy lifting on behalf of the ccTLD community!
Thank you!
Kind regards,
]{atrina
From: <owner-ccnso-members@icann.org <mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org>> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> Date: Wednesday 28 September 2016 09:54 To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> Cc: <ccnso-members@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>>, <ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board
Dear Colleagues,
I agree with Jordan that a discussion on this topic prior to the election / nomination would be required.
In addition to the point he raises, I would add the issue of choice for members. If I’m not mistaken, the last few Board seat elections took place without even a vote, due to a lack of candidates. We are fortunate to have two highly skilled and committed Board representatives today, but isn’t the absence of choice for members a strong warning signal ?
Maybe it could shared with this list whether it has already been discussed within the Council ?
Best regards,
Mathieu
*De :*owner-ccnso-members@icann.org <mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org> [mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org] *De la part de* Jordan Carter *Envoyé :* mercredi 28 septembre 2016 02:43 *À :* Joke Braeken *Cc :* ccnso-members@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-members@icann.org>; ccnso-council@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org> *Objet :* Re: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board
Hi Joke, Council, fellow ccNSO members:
Why the rush, is my short question?
The board seat does not come up until 2017’s AGM (more than a year away), and we have a meeting in Hyderabad coming up early November, a couple of weeks after the proposed close of nominations.
It surely would make sense to let people discuss and talk with each other about the seat at the meeting, given the long time available.
More significantly, we here at .nz think there needs to be a discussion about Board and Council candidates / members and their relationship with a ccTLD manager.
There are a couple of examples in both places, Board and Council, of people leaving a ccTLD and remaining in place.
I haven’t formed a view about whether that’s a good thing or not, but do think it would be reasonable for us to talk through, and before we have to deal with another round of ccNSO elections – either to Council or Board.
I am strongly opposed to a sudden nomination process like this when we have plenty of time to wait, discuss it at Hyderabad, agree some guidelines and then enter into an election closer to the time.
What do others think?
cheers,
On 28 September 2016 at 00:08, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear ccNSO members,
Chris Disspain’s term on the ICANN Board Seat 11 will expire at the ICANN Annual General Meeting 2016. The ccNSO is now opening a call for nominations to fill ICANN Board seat number 11. Below you will find all details related to the procedure for nominations and for seconding nominations.
*Nominations can be made as of Tuesday 27 September 2016, 00.00 UTC until Tuesday 18 October 2016, 23.59 UTC.*
Nominations can only be submitted to ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org> and will require verification.
Templates for nominating and seconding nominations are provided below, and published here: https://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27sep16-en.htm
The names of the nominees will be made public at http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations
Consult https://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27sep16-en.htm for details on the nomination process and the procedures/templates that apply.
Kind regards,
Joke Braeken
*Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board*
*Date: *27 September 2016
The term of the ICANN Board seat number 11 expires at the ICANN AGM 2016 and a nomination process therefore needs to be launched. Should there be more than one candidate nominated for seat number 11, an election will be held.
Bylaw Article IX – section 3.9 <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#IX> states:
"The ccNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 11 and 12 on the Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such selection must have affirmative votes of a majority of all the members of the ccNSO Council then in office. Notification of the ccNSO Council's selections shall be given by the ccNSO Council Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-8.4> and 12(1) <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-12.1>."
The 27 May 2016 Bylaws are not effective.
The ccNSO Council and the ccNSO members have decided that before making the nomination of Directors, the ccNSO members shall be entitled to nominate and vote for candidates they wish the Council to nominate to the ICANN Board.
Section 2(3) of Article VI of the Bylaws states "In carrying out their responsibilities to fill Seats 9 through 14, the Supporting Organizations shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-3> of this Article. At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region."
Pursuant to this Bylaw, the candidate that receives the highest number of votes from ccNSO members will be nominated by the Council to the ICANN Board.
Each member can nominate one candidate for seat 11 on the ICANN Board and each member can second one candidate.
In order to nominate or second a candidate, a member must be a member of the ccNSO by 27 September 2016.
Nominations can be made from 27 September 2016, 00.00 UTC until Tuesday 18 October 2016, 23.59 UTC.
Nominations should be sent by e-mail to the Election Manager at the following e-mail address: ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org>
PLEASE NOTE: If you send a Nomination or Second, you will receive an email from ICANN asking you to confirm that you have sent an email to ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org>. For your Nomination or Second to be valid, responding to the email requesting confirmation is _obligatory_.
Archives to be found at:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations
Please use this template for nominations:
*Template for Nomination*
1a. Full name of the candidate being nominated:
1b. E-mail address of the candidate being nominated:
1c. Country of which the candidate is a citizen:
2a. Full name of the nominator:
2b. E-mail address of the nominator:
All nominations must be seconded by another ccNSO member.
Please use this template for seconding nominations:
*Template for Seconding a Nomination*
1 Full name of nominator whose candidate is being seconded:
2a. Full name of the candidate being seconded:
2b. E-mail address of the candidate being seconded:
3a. Full name of the seconder:
3c. E-mail address of the seconder:
*Accepting Nominations*
The Election Manager will confirm the nomination, by sending an e-mail to the candidate requesting their acceptance. The candidate will then have a chance to submit their CV and/or a mission statement.
Nominations will be archived at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations
Joke Braeken
ccNSO Policy Advisor
joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org>
Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO
Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ *
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz <mailto:jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz> | www.InternetNZ.nz <http://www.InternetNZ.nz>
/A better world through a better Internet/
Sorry, a brief update: as Patricio rightfully pointed out, 27 September to 18 October does not make 6 weeks for nominations. I should have been more precise here. Six weeks period includes: Council decision (usually on a call which takes place once a month), preparations by the Secretariat, call for nominations, time for candidates to prepare their statements, send them out to the (respective) communities, prepare for face-to-face Q&As (do some campaigning, bribe the voters, etc.) Thanks! Regards, ]{atrina -- € From: <owner-ccnso-members@icann.org> on behalf of Katrina Sataki <katrina@nic.lv> Date: Wednesday 28 September 2016 15:45 To: Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Cc: <ccnso-members@icann.org>, <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board Dear Jordan, Mathieu, All, First of all, thank you for expressing your concerns around this topic. As Joke indicated in her email the ccNSO Council has discussed and approved the timeline for the Board (and Council) nominations /selection at its 1 September meeting and also adopted a new Board Nomination Guideline (https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-nominations-icann-board-guideli ne-01sep16-en.pdf), which replaced the Board selection guideline from 2008 (https://ccnso.icann.org/about/guidelines-board-selection-procedure-08may08- en.pdf) First of all, although formally the current term of Board seat 11 ends at the AGM in 2017, the ccNSO Council worked under the premise that the (new) Board member will be involved in ICANN Board as of May of the year they take their seat. In this cycle it means that the ccNSO should have selected/nominated its Board member by the end of April 2017 at the latest. Further, it has become a standard practice (and is now included in the new Guideline on Board nominations) that the community has an opportunity to interact with candidates during our face-to-face meetings. In this case that would mean either at the Hyderabad meeting (November 2016) or Copenhagen meeting (March 2017). In both cases we need to allow for 6 weeks of nominations and additionally take into account the possibility of an election and run-off election by the members after the face-to face meeting. Taking these factors into account, and to avoid a rushed nomination and election process, the ccNSO Council decided to adopt the current timeline. In addition, I would like to point out that previous Board selection processes were organized in a similar time cycle and the call for nominations was sent out at the same time for the same reasons. Should be no surprises here. Regarding the point with respect to Board and Council candidates/members and their relationship with a ccTLD manager, I appreciate that point. However, I must note that this is not a simple issue and there are several opposite views on this. Neither the Bylaws, nor our internal procedures say that our representatives must work for a ccTLD. In case of the Board and Council elections an individual needs to be nominated and seconded by a ccTLD manager. That being said, what if the person leaves the ccTLD and starts working for another ccTLD, is that ok? If the person leaves the ccTLD and does not start working for another ccTLD, should we run a new round of election or ask the ccTLD to appoint a successor (which would be the case if we elected the person as an employee of the particular ccTLD)? What if the person leaves and starts working for, e.g., a gTLD? I think this is something we should consider not only in the context of Councillors or Board members but also in the context of our representatives on various working groups. So far we have dealt with such situations on a case by case basis and I believe we have always found a solution that is the best for our community. Personally I support the view that we elect people on the basis of their personal qualities and their willingness to serve the ccTLD community (provided there are no conflicts of interest that might cast doubts on person’s actions). But I understand there are opposite views and welcome a discussion on these important issues. Answering Mathieu’s question whether the ccNSO Council has discussed elections and the lack of volunteers – yes, we have. But I would re-phrase Mathieu’s concern slightly. I do not think it would be entirely correct to say that the absence of choice for members is a strong warning signal. The choice is not something that can and should be administratively or artificially imposed by somebody. It is up to the members to provide this choice. Why members do not step forward certainly is a strong warning signal. Lack of volunteers and volunteers fatigue is a constant concern. We have used to the extent of ‘abused’ the same people over and over again. I can understand why they do not volunteer for more work very well. I can only wholeheartedly thank everybody who contribute to the work of the ccNSO and hope that other members (and non-members) will be inspired by all those wonderful people who do a lot of heavy lifting on behalf of the ccTLD community! Thank you! Kind regards, ]{atrina From: <owner-ccnso-members@icann.org> on behalf of Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> Date: Wednesday 28 September 2016 09:54 To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> Cc: <ccnso-members@icann.org>, <ccnso-council@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board Dear Colleagues, I agree with Jordan that a discussion on this topic prior to the election / nomination would be required. In addition to the point he raises, I would add the issue of choice for members. If I’m not mistaken, the last few Board seat elections took place without even a vote, due to a lack of candidates. We are fortunate to have two highly skilled and committed Board representatives today, but isn’t the absence of choice for members a strong warning signal ? Maybe it could shared with this list whether it has already been discussed within the Council ? Best regards, Mathieu De : owner-ccnso-members@icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-members@icann.org] De la part de Jordan Carter Envoyé : mercredi 28 septembre 2016 02:43 À : Joke Braeken Cc : ccnso-members@icann.org; ccnso-council@icann.org Objet : Re: [ccnso-members] Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board Hi Joke, Council, fellow ccNSO members: Why the rush, is my short question? The board seat does not come up until 2017’s AGM (more than a year away), and we have a meeting in Hyderabad coming up early November, a couple of weeks after the proposed close of nominations. It surely would make sense to let people discuss and talk with each other about the seat at the meeting, given the long time available. More significantly, we here at .nz think there needs to be a discussion about Board and Council candidates / members and their relationship with a ccTLD manager. There are a couple of examples in both places, Board and Council, of people leaving a ccTLD and remaining in place. I haven’t formed a view about whether that’s a good thing or not, but do think it would be reasonable for us to talk through, and before we have to deal with another round of ccNSO elections – either to Council or Board. I am strongly opposed to a sudden nomination process like this when we have plenty of time to wait, discuss it at Hyderabad, agree some guidelines and then enter into an election closer to the time. What do others think? cheers, On 28 September 2016 at 00:08, Joke Braeken <joke.braeken@icann.org> wrote: Dear ccNSO members, Chris Disspain’s term on the ICANN Board Seat 11 will expire at the ICANN Annual General Meeting 2016. The ccNSO is now opening a call for nominations to fill ICANN Board seat number 11. Below you will find all details related to the procedure for nominations and for seconding nominations. Nominations can be made as of Tuesday 27 September 2016, 00.00 UTC until Tuesday 18 October 2016, 23.59 UTC. Nominations can only be submitted to ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org> and will require verification. Templates for nominating and seconding nominations are provided below, and published here: https://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27sep16-en.htm The names of the nominees will be made public at http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations <http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations> Consult https://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27sep16-en.htm for details on the nomination process and the procedures/templates that apply. Kind regards, Joke Braeken Call for Nominations for a Director to the ICANN Board Date: 27 September 2016 The term of the ICANN Board seat number 11 expires at the ICANN AGM 2016 and a nomination process therefore needs to be launched. Should there be more than one candidate nominated for seat number 11, an election will be held. Bylaw Article IX – section 3.9 <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#IX> states: "The ccNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 11 and 12 on the Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such selection must have affirmative votes of a majority of all the members of the ccNSO Council then in office. Notification of the ccNSO Council's selections shall be given by the ccNSO Council Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-8.4> and 12(1) <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-12.1> ." The 27 May 2016 Bylaws are not effective. The ccNSO Council and the ccNSO members have decided that before making the nomination of Directors, the ccNSO members shall be entitled to nominate and vote for candidates they wish the Council to nominate to the ICANN Board. Section 2(3) of Article VI of the Bylaws states "In carrying out their responsibilities to fill Seats 9 through 14, the Supporting Organizations shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members that in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Section 3 <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-3> of this Article. At any given time, no two Directors selected by a Supporting Organization shall be citizens of the same country or of countries located in the same Geographic Region." Pursuant to this Bylaw, the candidate that receives the highest number of votes from ccNSO members will be nominated by the Council to the ICANN Board. Each member can nominate one candidate for seat 11 on the ICANN Board and each member can second one candidate. In order to nominate or second a candidate, a member must be a member of the ccNSO by 27 September 2016. Nominations can be made from 27 September 2016, 00.00 UTC until Tuesday 18 October 2016, 23.59 UTC. Nominations should be sent by e-mail to the Election Manager at the following e-mail address: ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org <mailto:ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org> PLEASE NOTE: If you send a Nomination or Second, you will receive an email from ICANN asking you to confirm that you have sent an email to ccnso-boardnominations@icann.org. For your Nomination or Second to be valid, responding to the email requesting confirmation is obligatory. Archives to be found at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations <http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations> Please use this template for nominations: Template for Nomination 1a. Full name of the candidate being nominated: 1b. E-mail address of the candidate being nominated: 1c. Country of which the candidate is a citizen: 2a. Full name of the nominator: 2b. E-mail address of the nominator: All nominations must be seconded by another ccNSO member. Please use this template for seconding nominations: Template for Seconding a Nomination 1 Full name of nominator whose candidate is being seconded: 2a. Full name of the candidate being seconded: 2b. E-mail address of the candidate being seconded: 3a. Full name of the seconder: 3c. E-mail address of the seconder: Accepting Nominations The Election Manager will confirm the nomination, by sending an e-mail to the candidate requesting their acceptance. The candidate will then have a chance to submit their CV and/or a mission statement. Nominations will be archived at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations <http://forum.icann.org/lists/ccnso-boardnominations> Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken@icann.org <mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO <https://twitter.com/ccNSO> Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ <https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/> http://ccnso.icann.org <http://ccnso.icann.org> -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz <http://www.InternetNZ.nz> A better world through a better Internet
participants (4)
-
Katrina Sataki -
Margarita Valdes -
Nigel Roberts -
Stephen Deerhake