Election - round 2
All, I've attached the email I received from Glen with the Round 1 ballot results. (Apologies for the delay. I've been offline since 5 PM EDT on Friday.) I've authorized her to proceed with Round 2 pursuant to the timing we'd agreed on in Singapore and to use the same ballot text. However, please let me know as soon as possible if you'd (a) prefer different ballot text (and, if so, what text you propose); and (b) like a cover note to be sent with the ballots (and, if so, what cover note you propose). Many thanks. Kristina From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 8:05 AM To: William Drake Cc: gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process thanks Bill, let me pivot to the leaders of the CSG on this list - i think Bill's reasoning is sound, this is for us to sort out. CSG leaders, please engage soon - these decisions bear on the nomination process for the reasons already discussed. i've already telegraphed my support for releasing the Councilors since i suggested the idea. since i'm a Councilor i'm a little uncomfortable lobbying too much at this point. could we try to have a direction sorted out by the end of the day Monday (UTC) so that candidates know the framework we'll be working under? i picked that day because we're in a weekend, but don't want this to linger too long so we can still hit Glen's proposed schedule. i'll kick the conversation off by coming up with a draft set of options (feel free to edit): - Candidates: - one per SG - open field - Councilors released: - immediately - after first round - after second round - never mikey On Mar 8, 2014, at 5:28 AM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch>> wrote: Hi Mikey On Mar 7, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote: one option we might consider is reducing the elapsed time for rounds of voting so we could squeeze in a third round before the Council meeting. there's this "Internet" thing that might help us get that done. if people are game, Glen and i can come up with a slightly tighter 3-round voting schedule and push it back to you all for approval. Hopefully not necessary but maybe advisable number of candidates a key puzzler, this. i couldn't track down documentation that enforces a "one per SG" rule, so i'm interested in hearing more. i'd observe that a "one per SG" approach does seem to put us on a course toward deadlock, but the "open-field" approach introduces a dilemma - if an SG puts up more than one candidate, they risk splitting their vote and "losing" to an SG that doesn't. I don't recall that there is such documentation and agree a "one per SG" approach would seem to put us on a course toward deadlock, especially given that NCSG no longer has board appointed Councilors. Of course, since they're not formally directed I suppose some NCSG Councilor could still decide to vote against a NCSG candidate, but if the fate of the process hinges entirely on that prospect it's a mighty biased system. i can only speak for my constituency here, but the way the ISPCP is chartered i'm constrained to vote based on "the interests and views of my constituency." Bill, your comment about Councillors being fully empowered as electors right from the start raises a topic which goes on the "really interesting, but not enough time to discuss/change this time around" pile for me. If there's direction just at the constituency level we could at least theoretically have someone get to 8 votes. If there's one per and direction at the CSG level what's the scenario for getting to 8? however one "tie breaking" strategy would be to go through a couple of rounds of voting and, if it's still deadlocked "release" the Councilors to be independent electors. that would put pressure on constituencies to be a bit more engaged in their work, as otherwise the job gets handed to Councillors. NC councilors are released now. If a third round looming disaster is what would be needed to achieve parity ok, that's for you guys to sort out. Best, Bill PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Hi Kristina, I think that we should keep the same ballot and I don't see the need of cover need other just to inform that is the second round (I believe that councillors are expecting the ballot anyway) I guess that we should both send the authorisation to Glen. Best Regards, Rafik 2014-04-08 0:18 GMT+09:00 Rosette, Kristina <krosette@cov.com>:
All,
I’ve attached the email I received from Glen with the Round 1 ballot results. (Apologies for the delay. I’ve been offline since 5 PM EDT on Friday.) I’ve authorized her to proceed with Round 2 pursuant to the timing we’d agreed on in Singapore and to use the same ballot text.
However, please let me know as soon as possible if you’d (a) prefer different ballot text (and, if so, what text you propose); and (b) like a cover note to be sent with the ballots (and, if so, what cover note you propose).
Many thanks.
Kristina
*From:* gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Mike O'Connor *Sent:* Saturday, March 08, 2014 8:05 AM *To:* William Drake *Cc:* gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process
thanks Bill,
let me pivot to the leaders of the CSG on this list — i think Bill’s reasoning is sound, this is for us to sort out.
CSG leaders, please engage soon — these decisions bear on the nomination process for the reasons already discussed. i’ve already telegraphed my support for releasing the Councilors since i suggested the idea. since i’m a Councilor i’m a little uncomfortable lobbying too much at this point. could we try to have a direction sorted out by the end of the day Monday (UTC) so that candidates know the framework we’ll be working under? i picked that day because we’re in a weekend, but don’t want this to linger too long so we can still hit Glen’s proposed schedule.
i’ll kick the conversation off by coming up with a draft set of options (feel free to edit):
- Candidates:
- one per SG
- open field
- Councilors released:
- immediately
- after first round
- after second round
- never
mikey
On Mar 8, 2014, at 5:28 AM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> wrote:
Hi Mikey
On Mar 7, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com> wrote:
one option we might consider is reducing the elapsed time for rounds of voting so we could squeeze in a third round before the Council meeting. there’s this “Internet" thing that might help us get that done. if people are game, Glen and i can come up with a slightly tighter 3-round voting schedule and push it back to you all for approval.
Hopefully not necessary but maybe advisable
*number of candidates*
a key puzzler, this. i couldn’t track down documentation that enforces a “one per SG” rule, so i’m interested in hearing more. i’d observe that a “one per SG” approach does seem to put us on a course toward deadlock, but the “open-field” approach introduces a dilemma — if an SG puts up more than one candidate, they risk splitting their vote and “losing" to an SG that doesn’t.
I don’t recall that there is such documentation and agree a “one per SG” approach would seem to put us on a course toward deadlock, especially given that NCSG no longer has board appointed Councilors. Of course, since they're not formally directed I suppose some NCSG Councilor could still decide to vote against a NCSG candidate, but if the fate of the process hinges entirely on that prospect it’s a mighty biased system.
i can only speak for my constituency here, but the way the ISPCP is chartered i’m constrained to vote based on “the interests and views of my constituency." Bill, your comment about Councillors being fully empowered as electors right from the start raises a topic which goes on the “really interesting, but not enough time to discuss/change this time around” pile for me.
If there’s direction just at the constituency level we could at least theoretically have someone get to 8 votes. If there’s one per and direction at the CSG level what’s the scenario for getting to 8?
however one “tie breaking” strategy would be to go through a couple of rounds of voting and, if it’s still deadlocked “release" the Councilors to be independent electors. that would put pressure on constituencies to be a bit more engaged in their work, as otherwise the job gets handed to Councillors.
NC councilors are released now. If a third round looming disaster is what would be needed to achieve parity ok, that’s for you guys to sort out.
Best,
Bill
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
---------- Message transféré ---------- From: "Glen de Saint Géry" <Glen@icann.org> To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com> Cc: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@icann.org>, "Glen de Saint Géry" <Glen@icann.org> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 20:33:18 -0400 Subject: NCPH Board Seat election
Dear Kristina,
Please find the results of the first round of voting which closed on Friday, 4 April at 23:59 UTC. Final tally counting verbal vote:
6 votes Avri Doria
6 votes Bill Graham
1 vote None of the above
We await your instructions to continue with the second round of voting due to open at 07:00UTC on 8 April 2014 and close on 11 April at 23:59 UTC. Please provide us with the text for the ballot and any covering note that has to be sent with the vote.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Glen
*Machine tally:*
*Total Ballots Cast (including duplicates):* 13 *Ballots Counted (excluding duplicates):* 12 *Voters Who Haven't Voted:* 1 (person was out of email contact for the duration of the vote, and a verbal vote was registered by Glen de Saint Gery and has been counted in the total below)
*Ballot with added tally (using weights, if any):*
1: 5 votes [] Avri Doria
2: 6 votes [] Bill Graham
3: 1 vote [] None of the above
*Ballots Received:*
Ballot ID 870d70c32e6b349 Received at 2014-04-03 09:50:01 UTC *(counted)*
1: [ ]
2: [X]
3: [ ]
Ballot ID 1ba54db9907dd7e Received at 2014-04-02 21:22:00 UTC *(counted)*
1: [ ]
2: [X]
3: [ ]
Ballot ID 97a2fc149f50200 Received at 2014-04-02 14:17:26 UTC *(counted)*
1: [ ]
2: [X]
3: [ ]
Ballot ID fbebb4d00bafaae Received at 2014-04-01 01:53:50 UTC *(counted)*
1: [X]
2: [ ]
3: [ ]
Ballot ID 870d70c32e6b349 Received at 2014-04-01 01:46:31 UTC *(duplicate; not counted)*
1: [X]
2: [ ]
3: [ ]
Ballot ID 435789aec0d60f2 Received at 2014-03-31 21:11:42 UTC *(counted)*
1: [X]
2: [ ]
3: [ ]
Ballot ID 3fbf1ab413bcac6 Received at 2014-03-31 17:50:52 UTC *(counted)*
1: [ ]
2: [X]
3: [ ]
Ballot ID c65f759ea537bc9 Received at 2014-03-31 15:27:14 UTC *(counted)*
1: [ ]
2: [X]
3: [ ]
Ballot ID 9318fe29b3de429 Received at 2014-03-31 13:49:13 UTC *(counted)*
1: [ ]
2: [ ]
3: [X]
Ballot ID 100ddcf8de3f3a1 Received at 2014-03-31 11:21:32 UTC *(counted)*
1: [X]
2: [ ]
3: [ ]
Ballot ID ed4276d21ae2ccc Received at 2014-03-31 10:18:41 UTC *(counted)*
1: [ ]
2: [X]
3: [ ]
Ballot ID 31b3465344dfc48 Received at 2014-03-31 10:12:28 UTC *(counted)*
1: [X]
2: [ ]
3: [ ]
Ballot ID 8b8e896646509b6 Received at 2014-03-31 08:48:53 UTC *(counted)*
1: [X]
2: [ ]
3: [ ]
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat *gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>* *http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>*
*From:* Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] *Sent:* vendredi 28 mars 2014 01:29 *To:* Glen de Saint Géry *Cc:* Nathalie Peregrine *Subject:* RE: NCPH Board Seat election
Hello Glen,
On behalf of NCPH, please find below the requested timing and victory threshold for the Board seat election:
Timing:
Round 1: March 31-April 4
Round 2: April 8-11
Round 3: April 14-16
(Rounds 2 and 3 will be required only if no candidate reaches the 8 of 13 vote threshold in round 1 and 2, respectively)
*Votes required for candidate to win*: 8 of 13 (60%)
The proposed ballot text you provided below is appropriate. Thank you for suggesting it.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any further information. I will be in Singapore until early Saturday morning and then am in transit for about 24 hours.
It was lovely to see you. As always, many thanks for your assistance!
Sincerely yours, Kristina
Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com www.cov.com/krosette
*This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.*
*From:* Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org <Glen@icann.org>] *Sent:* Thursday, March 27, 2014 3:59 AM *To:* Rosette, Kristina; Nathalie Peregrine *Cc:* Glen de Saint Géry *Subject:* RE: NCPH Board Seat election
Dear Kristina,
Thank you so much for this information. Yes it will be possible to start the voting on Monday 31 March 2014.
May I also ask you please to provide the text for the ballot with the text for the covering instructions that you would like to accompany it.
For example would this be appropriate for the ballot?
[ ] Avri Doria
[ ] Bill Graham
[ ] None of the above
We look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you very much Kind regards,
Glen
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat *gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>* *http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>*
*From:* Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com <krosette@cov.com>] *Sent:* jeudi 27 mars 2014 08:39 *To:* Glen de Saint Géry; Nathalie Peregrine *Subject:* NCPH Board Seat election
Dear Glen and Nathalie,
NCPH leadership is finalizing the timing and threshold for the NCPH Board seat election. I will be back to you as soon as those details are finalized.
Question: Would it be possible to start the voting on Monday, 31 March? (We’ve built the timing on that start date so I hope it won’t be an issue.)
Many thanks!!
Best,
Kristina
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list Gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership
Hi Rafik, I’d already authorized her to do so given the timing (see below; my fault - I was offline for the weekend), but you should feel free to send her an email to confirm if you want. K From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 11:35 AM To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] Election - round 2 Hi Kristina, I think that we should keep the same ballot and I don't see the need of cover need other just to inform that is the second round (I believe that councillors are expecting the ballot anyway) I guess that we should both send the authorisation to Glen. Best Regards, Rafik 2014-04-08 0:18 GMT+09:00 Rosette, Kristina <krosette@cov.com<mailto:krosette@cov.com>>: All, I’ve attached the email I received from Glen with the Round 1 ballot results. (Apologies for the delay. I’ve been offline since 5 PM EDT on Friday.) I’ve authorized her to proceed with Round 2 pursuant to the timing we’d agreed on in Singapore and to use the same ballot text. However, please let me know as soon as possible if you’d (a) prefer different ballot text (and, if so, what text you propose); and (b) like a cover note to be sent with the ballots (and, if so, what cover note you propose). Many thanks. Kristina From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 8:05 AM To: William Drake Cc: gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process thanks Bill, let me pivot to the leaders of the CSG on this list — i think Bill’s reasoning is sound, this is for us to sort out. CSG leaders, please engage soon — these decisions bear on the nomination process for the reasons already discussed. i’ve already telegraphed my support for releasing the Councilors since i suggested the idea. since i’m a Councilor i’m a little uncomfortable lobbying too much at this point. could we try to have a direction sorted out by the end of the day Monday (UTC) so that candidates know the framework we’ll be working under? i picked that day because we’re in a weekend, but don’t want this to linger too long so we can still hit Glen’s proposed schedule. i’ll kick the conversation off by coming up with a draft set of options (feel free to edit): - Candidates: - one per SG - open field - Councilors released: - immediately - after first round - after second round - never mikey On Mar 8, 2014, at 5:28 AM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch>> wrote: Hi Mikey On Mar 7, 2014, at 4:21 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com<mailto:mike@haven2.com>> wrote: one option we might consider is reducing the elapsed time for rounds of voting so we could squeeze in a third round before the Council meeting. there’s this “Internet" thing that might help us get that done. if people are game, Glen and i can come up with a slightly tighter 3-round voting schedule and push it back to you all for approval. Hopefully not necessary but maybe advisable number of candidates a key puzzler, this. i couldn’t track down documentation that enforces a “one per SG” rule, so i’m interested in hearing more. i’d observe that a “one per SG” approach does seem to put us on a course toward deadlock, but the “open-field” approach introduces a dilemma — if an SG puts up more than one candidate, they risk splitting their vote and “losing" to an SG that doesn’t. I don’t recall that there is such documentation and agree a “one per SG” approach would seem to put us on a course toward deadlock, especially given that NCSG no longer has board appointed Councilors. Of course, since they're not formally directed I suppose some NCSG Councilor could still decide to vote against a NCSG candidate, but if the fate of the process hinges entirely on that prospect it’s a mighty biased system. i can only speak for my constituency here, but the way the ISPCP is chartered i’m constrained to vote based on “the interests and views of my constituency." Bill, your comment about Councillors being fully empowered as electors right from the start raises a topic which goes on the “really interesting, but not enough time to discuss/change this time around” pile for me. If there’s direction just at the constituency level we could at least theoretically have someone get to 8 votes. If there’s one per and direction at the CSG level what’s the scenario for getting to 8? however one “tie breaking” strategy would be to go through a couple of rounds of voting and, if it’s still deadlocked “release" the Councilors to be independent electors. that would put pressure on constituencies to be a bit more engaged in their work, as otherwise the job gets handed to Councillors. NC councilors are released now. If a third round looming disaster is what would be needed to achieve parity ok, that’s for you guys to sort out. Best, Bill PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) ---------- Message transféré ---------- From: "Glen de Saint Géry" <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com<mailto:krosette@cov.com>> Cc: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@icann.org<mailto:nathalie.peregrine@icann.org>>, "Glen de Saint Géry" <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 20:33:18 -0400 Subject: NCPH Board Seat election Dear Kristina, Please find the results of the first round of voting which closed on Friday, 4 April at 23:59 UTC. Final tally counting verbal vote: 6 votes Avri Doria 6 votes Bill Graham 1 vote None of the above We await your instructions to continue with the second round of voting due to open at 07:00UTC on 8 April 2014 and close on 11 April at 23:59 UTC. Please provide us with the text for the ballot and any covering note that has to be sent with the vote. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Machine tally: Total Ballots Cast (including duplicates): 13 Ballots Counted (excluding duplicates): 12 Voters Who Haven't Voted: 1 (person was out of email contact for the duration of the vote, and a verbal vote was registered by Glen de Saint Gery and has been counted in the total below) Ballot with added tally (using weights, if any): 1: 5 votes [] Avri Doria 2: 6 votes [] Bill Graham 3: 1 vote [] None of the above Ballots Received: Ballot ID 870d70c32e6b349 Received at 2014-04-03 09:50:01 UTC (counted) 1: [ ] 2: [X] 3: [ ] Ballot ID 1ba54db9907dd7e Received at 2014-04-02 21:22:00 UTC (counted) 1: [ ] 2: [X] 3: [ ] Ballot ID 97a2fc149f50200 Received at 2014-04-02 14:17:26 UTC (counted) 1: [ ] 2: [X] 3: [ ] Ballot ID fbebb4d00bafaae Received at 2014-04-01 01:53:50 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] Ballot ID 870d70c32e6b349 Received at 2014-04-01 01:46:31 UTC (duplicate; not counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] Ballot ID 435789aec0d60f2 Received at 2014-03-31 21:11:42 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] Ballot ID 3fbf1ab413bcac6 Received at 2014-03-31 17:50:52 UTC (counted) 1: [ ] 2: [X] 3: [ ] Ballot ID c65f759ea537bc9 Received at 2014-03-31 15:27:14 UTC (counted) 1: [ ] 2: [X] 3: [ ] Ballot ID 9318fe29b3de429 Received at 2014-03-31 13:49:13 UTC (counted) 1: [ ] 2: [ ] 3: [X] Ballot ID 100ddcf8de3f3a1 Received at 2014-03-31 11:21:32 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] Ballot ID ed4276d21ae2ccc Received at 2014-03-31 10:18:41 UTC (counted) 1: [ ] 2: [X] 3: [ ] Ballot ID 31b3465344dfc48 Received at 2014-03-31 10:12:28 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] Ballot ID 8b8e896646509b6 Received at 2014-03-31 08:48:53 UTC (counted) 1: [X] 2: [ ] 3: [ ] Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com<mailto:krosette@cov.com>] Sent: vendredi 28 mars 2014 01:29 To: Glen de Saint Géry Cc: Nathalie Peregrine Subject: RE: NCPH Board Seat election Hello Glen, On behalf of NCPH, please find below the requested timing and victory threshold for the Board seat election: Timing: Round 1: March 31-April 4 Round 2: April 8-11 Round 3: April 14-16 (Rounds 2 and 3 will be required only if no candidate reaches the 8 of 13 vote threshold in round 1 and 2, respectively) Votes required for candidate to win: 8 of 13 (60%) The proposed ballot text you provided below is appropriate. Thank you for suggesting it. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any further information. I will be in Singapore until early Saturday morning and then am in transit for about 24 hours. It was lovely to see you. As always, many thanks for your assistance! Sincerely yours, Kristina Kristina Rosette Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2401 voice: 202-662-5173 direct fax: 202-778-5173 main fax: 202-662-6291 e-mail: krosette@cov.com<mailto:krosette@cov.com> www.cov.com/krosette<http://www.cov.com/krosette> This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 3:59 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; Nathalie Peregrine Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Subject: RE: NCPH Board Seat election Dear Kristina, Thank you so much for this information. Yes it will be possible to start the voting on Monday 31 March 2014. May I also ask you please to provide the text for the ballot with the text for the covering instructions that you would like to accompany it. For example would this be appropriate for the ballot? [ ] Avri Doria [ ] Bill Graham [ ] None of the above We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you very much Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Sent: jeudi 27 mars 2014 08:39 To: Glen de Saint Géry; Nathalie Peregrine Subject: NCPH Board Seat election Dear Glen and Nathalie, NCPH leadership is finalizing the timing and threshold for the NCPH Board seat election. I will be back to you as soon as those details are finalized. Question: Would it be possible to start the voting on Monday, 31 March? (We’ve built the timing on that start date so I hope it won’t be an issue.) Many thanks!! Best, Kristina _______________________________________________ Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list Gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership
participants (2)
-
Rafik Dammak -
Rosette, Kristina