All, Also speaking in my personal capacity, I have some sympathy for David's point: choosing procedures on the basis of comfort at the specific situation is a bit bad form. On the other hand, changing procedures in the middle of the process they're about is also somewhat risky, even if in this specific case it obviously would not affect the outcome apart from a small delay. In general, lacking formal rules my instinct would be to follow tradition, precedent. I'm new enough here that I don't know if such votes have been arranged before or otherwise how vice chairs of NCHP have been selected. Perhaps some of the more experienced among us could shed light on the past here? If there have never been NCPH-wide votes before (and there're no written procedures for such), having one now would establish a new precedent. I won't judge if that would be a good or a bad one, but we should keep that in mind if we decide to do it. On the other hand if such votes have always been done in the past, the same applies in reverse. If it's been done occasionally this and occasionally that way... oh well. Perhaps look at which has been more common? In any case, in the long run it would be good to agree on the procedure in advance rather than at the very moment of the election. But I'm not a lawyer and I've never been a councilor myself, so I may be completely lost here and if so, won't mind being shown the light. :-) -- Tapani Tarvainen On Nov 12 14:23, David Cake (dave@difference.com.au) wrote:
On 12 Nov 2015, at 11:25 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> wrote:
Hi,
These are my personal views on this, and I stand to be corrected by others:
On Nov 9, 2015, at 10:09 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Hi David,
I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Amr's email from Nov 06 indicated the NCSG's agreement to Heather's selection as VC from the NCPH - at least I did understand so. So I'm a little confused why a formal election should now take place. There is no need for the CSG to do so, I'm sure.
Please shed some light on the process.
Yes, the NCSG Policy Committee consisting of its 6 elected councillors and appointed members from each of the two NCSG constituencies has reached consensus on Heather’s selection as the NCPH's Vice Chair to the Council.
Which, as you know, does not bind any of the NCSG councillors (unless it chooses to do so, which we haven’t), and given the confusion on the issue.
In the absence of any requirement in the ICANN bylaws/GNSO Operating Procedures to hold formal elections or votes for a VC, this process should be sufficient and consistent with the PC’s role in the NCSG charter.
I would say that in the absence of any by law requirements, the NCPH is effectively a group of councillors (including one that is not part of either SG), in which the SGs have no formal role (though, of course, a huge informal role). My attitude is that, in the absence of any bylaws, we should go with the minimal formal procedure that definitely achieves the objective, rather than make up a procedure based on what we all happen to be comfortable with at the time. Because such ad hoc procedures, if the NCPH fails to settle on a procedure as we have for several years, will become confusing precedent. Lets simply make it formally clear.
On Nov 9, 2015, at 8:21 PM, David Cake <dave@DIFFERENCE.COM.AU> wrote:
Personally, speaking as a councillor, I'd like there to be at least some, however abbreviated, formal election for vice-chair. Ncsg councillors aren't bound, and I wouldn't want to presume how all will vote based on discussion.
As above, I personally do not believe an election is necessary. The views of the (majority of) NCSG councillors were expressed during the NCSG Policy Committee. Enough support has been expressed for Heather’s candidacy as VC to achieve the PC’s required consensus level for an NCSG position.
I believe the PC (and indeed, the SG) has no formal role in the selection of a councillor, in the absence of any rules at all.
All I’m asking for is perhaps a vote of the NCPH councillors, in the absence of any other formal procedure. I expect that that vote will be unanimous, or at the least an overwhelming majority. It need not take more than, say, 48 hours at the outside.
Speaking as acting co-chair etc, planning for the next meeting is already fairly advanced, and while I appreciate Greg's understanding of how busy IGF can be, I'm sure I can keep up with planning. I'd think having the changeover at the conclusion of that meeting would be a practical point. Though I'd be happy to keep Heather in the loop, so to speak.
This is a different and unrelated issue.
It is. I put the two together, only because I was replying to a message from Greg which also discussed both.
I don’t know enough about the discussions that take place among the council leadership team to prepare for meetings to have an informed opinion on the practicality of changing the VC one week before the council meeting. It is my belief, however, that it would be best to confirm the new VC’s appointment sooner rather than later. We’re already behind the traditional schedule. If Heather and David can work to make this happen, that’d be great. If not, then keeping Heather “in the loop” is certainly necessary regardless of when she will be taking over.
In any case, I do not believe a formal election with ballots is necessary.
Perhaps just a vote of all councillors.
David
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list Gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership