Hi Mickey, as several of us are struggling for some deadlines, that may be a rational for the silence and slow response. anyway we have a deadline , but we still need to discuss and agree on process. following a old process for sake of satisfying a deadline looks wrong as project management approach IMHO :) can we throw some proposals in the next 3 days, so we can work on them next week . nomination and consultation will take time, while the the vote can be done quickly by our councillors. we have also singapore meeting in the middle, either it can be an opportunity for or impediment against speeding up the process. Best, Rafik 2014-03-06 23:31 GMT+09:00 Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>:
hi all,
i sense we’re getting stuck, so i thought i’d try a post to start getting us unstuck and see where it takes us. feel free to rain all over this idea if it makes you uncomfortable. i’m lifting a lot of this post directly from materials written by David Kolb that were provided to the people who attended the leadership development session before Buenos Aires.
to start — i muddied the waters a bit by indicating that i might be interested in running for that Board slot. i’ve thought about it and have decided one of my contributions to getting us unstuck is to declare that i’m not running for that seat. period. i’ll take a Sherman on that. "if nominated, i will not run. if elected i will not serve."
the problem:
- we don’t seem to moving forward on deciding how to select our Board member - if we can’t select somebody by April 16th, we lose a Board seat (that’s a Bylaws deadline) - if we wait much longer to set up the selection process, we risk losing a lot of process integrity, transparency and accountability - we can compress Glen’s timeline a little bit, but not a whole lot, if we follow the approach she’s offered to facilitate for us
underneath this, we’re in conflict. it may be useful to think about what kind of conflict — and here’s the first list from David's leadership development materials:
- goal conflict? some want a different outcome than others? - idea conflict? incompatible ideas? - attitudinal conflict? incompatible feelings or attitudes? - behavioral conflict? unacceptable actions? - resource conflict? we want the same thing and there’s no way to share?
- some mix of the above? let’s presume that’s the case.
let’s also presume that we probably can’t resolve all those conflicts (some of which may be pretty long standing) in the short time we have to select a Board member. but maybe we can identify the pain and create an agenda of “things to work on” along with solving this near-term puzzler.
once we acknowledge that we’re in conflict, the next question (also from the LD materials) is “what strategy are we going to take to resolve it?” and our choices include:
- avoid - which appears to be what we’re doing now, but which also isn’t likely to work out well - accommodate - some of us could yield to the wishes of others - confront - somebody could just go ahead and decide - collaborate - which is where i prefer to hang out, especially if there’s time
David’s book goes on to highlight one more dimension of conflict — whether the conflict is visible or covert. i think here we’ve got some elements of covert conflict at work here. another quote from David’s book: “covert conflict is expressed when we feel a lack of power or control in a situation. instead of addressing the issue directly we address it indirectly.” the trouble with this situation, for me anyway, is that we’re ICANN — a place that should try hard to make decisions directly and in public.
here’s the list of things to do when confronting conflict that may have some elements of covert conflict (this is what i’m trying to do with this post)
- surface the issue — this post - be persistent — me?? Mikey?? persistent?? - deflect aggression - defuse emotion - clarify and assert - focus on the issue
so what do we **DO** you ask…
i’d like to leave that up to us. i’ve got some ideas on options, but i want to float this “approach to solving the puzzler” post first and see where it goes. i mentioned above that my preferred approach is collaboration and i mean it. so let’s leave “what do we DO??" as the key question to answer, but figure out whether we all buy this framing post first.
i’m convinced we can figure this out. i’m also convinced that the NCPH will be better, more effective, and more fun to hang out in, as a result.
what do you think?
mikey
On Mar 5, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> wrote:
To : Non-Contracted Party House
Dear All,
A gentle reminder that having heard nothing to the contrary, the proposed voting schedule below suggests:
• Nomination period – nominations to be made by Councilors from the NCPH: open Monday 3 March, close Monday, 17 March 2014 at 23:59 UTC. Candidates to be announced by staff on Wednesday 19, March 2014. (if the NCPH wants this)
This provides a period, during the ICANN meeting in Singapore to interview and interact with the nominees
Nominations should be sent to: gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org
Please advise whether you would like a special meeting scheduled in Singapore to interview the candidate(s).
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Glen
ICANN Board Seat 14 is currently held by Bill Graham. His term is set to expire at the 2014 Annual General Meeting, which is scheduled to be held on 16 October 2014 in Los Angeles. According to the ICANN Bylaws, the Non-Contracted Party House shall select a representative to fill Board Seat 14, and must give the ICANN Secretary written notice of its selection at least 6 months before the date of the beginning of the term for the seat. As a result, the Non-Contracted Party House selection for Board Seat 14 must be provided to the ICANN Secretary by no later than April 16, 2014. (Refer to Bylaws Art. VI, Section 8(4)<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#VI-8>, Art. X, Section 3(6) <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-3>)
Each House is responsible for establishing its own internal procedures for nominations, interviews, voting, and candidate selection; however, those processes must be documented and forwarded to the GNSO Council for inclusion as ANNEXES to the GNSO Operating Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf>. If a House subsequently elects to alter its procedures, such amendments must be submitted to the GNSO Council before becoming effective so that the procedures accurately reflect the actual processes and activities performed by each House in selecting its candidate. (Refer to Section 2.4 of the Operating Procedures <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf>.)
Here are some suggestions for a voting schedule. Staff would be happy to help with the elections if the NCPH so wishes.
• Nomination period – nominations to be made by Councilors from the NCPH: open Monday 3 March, close Monday, 17 March 2014. Candidates to be announced by staff on Wednesday 19, March 2014. (if the NCPH wants this)
This provides a period, during the ICANN meeting in Singapore to interview and interact with the nominees
• First round of voting: open Friday, 28 March, close Thursday, 3 April 2014.
Electronic Ballot which could be sent by the GNSO Secretariat to the Councilors, using the ICANN process which is highly accurate and used for all official votes by the GNSO Council. Any candidate receiving at least 8 votes wins. Results could be tabulated by the GNSO Secretariat and announced Friday, 5 April 2014
(Since the slate is small (13) this can be managed at a critical time after an ICANN meeting when people go on holiday or back to day jobs)
• Second round of voting (if needed): open Saturday April 6, close Wednesday, 9 April 2014. Run-off between the two leading candidates from first round. Either candidate receiving at least 8 votes wins. Results to be announced Thursday, 10 April 2014
*Some considerations :*
· Please note that the Council has scheduled a special Council meeting on Thursday 10 April 2014 at 14:00 UTC to confirm the selection.
· This tight schedule will make it difficult for a third round of voting as stated below:
• Third round of voting (if needed): open Friday, 11 April, close Tuesday, 15 April 2014. This does not leave time for the Council to confirm the vote.
Run-off between the two leading candidates from first round. Either candidate receiving at least 8 votes wins. Results to be announced Wednesday, 16 April 2014 and transmitted to ICANN Secretary by the GNSO Council chair.
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list Gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list Gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership