Nominations open Monday 3 March, close Monday, 17 March 2014: ICANN Board Seat 14 - Non Contracted Party House
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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org
Hi Glen, Thanks for the reminder, however we didn't agree on process nor timeline yet within NCPH. so we cannot have nomination period now. we have yet to discuss and agree on how we should proceed. Best, Rafik 2014-03-06 7:31 GMT+09:00 Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org>:
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
Glen, What happens if we miss the deadline? Berard Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 5, 2014, at 5:31 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), Art. X, Section 3(6))
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. 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.)
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 nomineesThis 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 http://gnso.icann.org
/p> _______________________________________________ Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list Gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership
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), Art. X, Section 3(6))
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. 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.)
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 http://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.)
I’m new here, but if there are multiple people interested in running, why not simply have a vote? From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:31 AM To: gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ 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 PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
I agree – can we not just hold a nomination period, and then an election so that we can meet the April 16th deadline? From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reed, Daniel A Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 7:43 AM To: Mike O'Connor; gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process I’m new here, but if there are multiple people interested in running, why not simply have a vote? From: 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: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:31 AM To: gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ 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 PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
This makes sense to me as well! Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244 brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com<mailto:brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com> / www.kattenlaw.com<http://www.kattenlaw.com/> From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:41 AM To: Reed, Daniel A; Mike O'Connor; gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process I agree – can we not just hold a nomination period, and then an election so that we can meet the April 16th deadline? From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reed, Daniel A Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 7:43 AM To: Mike O'Connor; 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 I’m new here, but if there are multiple people interested in running, why not simply have a vote? From: 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: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:31 AM To: gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ 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 PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) =========================================================== CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. =========================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies. =========================================================== NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). ===========================================================
It would make sense - if this house had a procedure for nomination, voting and selection as requested in the GNSO procedures 2.4.3. Even for me it’s not transparent e.g. who is going to nominate; are self-nominations possible (Mikey, I’m sorry you stepped back...)? As there are 2 parts of the house (NCSG and CSG) to select 1 candidate for the job this reminds me to the similar situation like the council is confronted with when electing a chair. For this case there is a detailed procedure available in the GNSO procedures. I wonder if some people of this house with a certain expertise could sit together and try to check the applicability of the ideas of the council chair election process and come back with appropriate suggestions. I think it could be a starting point towards more transparency. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Winterfeldt, Brian J. Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 5:01 PM To: 'Elisa Cooper' ; Reed, Daniel A ; Mike O'Connor ; gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process This makes sense to me as well! Brian J. Winterfeldt Head of Internet Practice Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 2900 K Street NW, North Tower - Suite 200 / Washington, DC 20007-5118 p / (202) 625-3562 f / (202) 339-8244 brian.winterfeldt@kattenlaw.com / www.kattenlaw.com From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 10:41 AM To: Reed, Daniel A; Mike O'Connor; gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process I agree – can we not just hold a nomination period, and then an election so that we can meet the April 16th deadline? From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reed, Daniel A Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 7:43 AM To: Mike O'Connor; gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process I’m new here, but if there are multiple people interested in running, why not simply have a vote? From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:31 AM To: gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process 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), Art. X, Section 3(6)) 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. 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.) 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 http://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.) =========================================================== CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Regulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, any tax advice contained herein is not intended or written to be used and cannot be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. =========================================================== CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attached files contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended recipients and delete the original message without making any copies. =========================================================== NOTIFICATION: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP is an Illinois limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). =========================================================== -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list Gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership
Hi On Mar 6, 2014, at 6:43 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
It would make sense - if this house had a procedure for nomination, voting and selection as requested in the GNSO procedures 2.4.3.
Ok, just peeked at old mail. Below is what we did last time— 8 to win, NCSG had undirected voting but (correct me if I’m wrong) CSG did not. First round was 7 votes for Avri and 6 for Bill, second round was 8 for Bill and 5 for Avri as a couple Board appointed NCSG Councilors switched. I don’t remember for sure whether each SG nominated just one as a bloc or we allowed anyone to nominate anyone who wanted to stand (and then the first round shake it down); haven’t had enough coffee yet. A priori, I would favor an open process where anyone can stand and anyone can be voted for by the Councilors. Candidates would then have to actually reach out equally to all Councilors and persuade them of their views and that they would take the full house’s views into account on the board; the Councilors would be fully empowered to serve as electors and vote for the candidate they think best to represent their constituencies; and the process could be more fluid and less bloc polarized. Freedom on the supply and demand sides has been the standard is pretty much every other policy network or collaboration I’ve participated in, and it has the added benefit of not requiring the sort of procedural negotiations and deadlocks that can make the GNSO so much fun. But others’ mileages may vary… Anyone have a less foggy memory than I about 2011, or thoughts on the relative merits of different models? Best, Bill Begin forwarded message:
From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: NCPH Voting for Board Seat 14 Date: April 22, 2011 at 4:36:14 PM GMT+2 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com>, "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, "Taylor, David" <David.Taylor@hoganlovells.com>, "jaime@powerself.com.br" <jaime@powerself.com.br>, "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Rosemary Sinclair <Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au>, "HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org" <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>, "Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu" <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Cc: "gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>, Glen De Saint Gery <gnso@mobileemail.vodafone.fr>
Dear All,
A reminder about the voting timeline and the ballots you will receive on Monday 25 April 2011.
Timeline: . First round of voting: open Monday, April 25, close Saturday, April 30 at 11:59 UTC. Ballot to 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 to be tabulated by the GNSO Secretariat and announced Sunday, May 1st.
. Second round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 2, close Friday, May 6 at 11:59 UTC. Run-off between the two leading candidates from first round. Either candidate receiving at least 8 votes wins. Results to be announced Saturday, May 7.
. Third round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 9, close Friday, May 13 at 11:59 UTC. Leading candidate from second round vs. "None of the above." Remaining candidate wins if receives at least 8 votes.
Ballots: The ballots will come from tally@icann.org. Please be sure to complete the webform when you vote because there are too many variables with emails that make it difficult to process the ballot. Please let me know within the first 24 hours if you have not received a ballot.
Please let me know if you will NOT be at the email address this email is sent to for voting purposes or if you need a telephonic vote. If no other email is provided, please be aware that the ballots will be sent individually to each NCPH councilor at the above addresses. In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is closed.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
hi Bill, thanks for your post. i think it’s really helpful. schedule yep, Glen is proposing we follow pretty much the same series of events this time around. i think we’d be miles ahead if we could agree to Glen’s proposed structure (we’re still fine, the nomination period she's proposing won’t end until 17-March). here’s the summary (note the gap between nominations includes Singapore, a good time for conversations w/candidates, no?): 3-March — 17-March: Nomination period (results announced 19-March) ICANN Singapore — a good time to interact with candidates — maybe schedule a meeting or two? 28-March — 3-April: First round of voting (announced 5-April) 6-April — 9-April: Second round of voting (results announced 10-April) 10-April: Special GNSO Council meeting to confirm the selection 16-April: Bylaws-mandated deadline for the GNSO to notify the Board 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. 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. my wish for a less time-pressured future is that we figure out a better way, but i’m leaning toward Wolf-Ulrich’s view of one candidate per SG this time around. mostly because it’s a known thing. i’d be open to creative “tie-breaking” ideas (see below for one that will probably drive people crazy), otherwise it seems possible to just go through a series of tied votes. conversations with candidates i’m also keen to have conversations take place between the candidates and the constituencies. don’t care how they’re structured, but would like them to be open too. Singapore seems like an ideal time to put these together. Councillor voting 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. 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. for those of you who know me well, i’m wide open to suggestions/changes. thoughts? thanks again Bill. mikey On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:20 AM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> wrote:
Hi
On Mar 6, 2014, at 6:43 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
It would make sense - if this house had a procedure for nomination, voting and selection as requested in the GNSO procedures 2.4.3.
Ok, just peeked at old mail. Below is what we did last time— 8 to win, NCSG had undirected voting but (correct me if I’m wrong) CSG did not. First round was 7 votes for Avri and 6 for Bill, second round was 8 for Bill and 5 for Avri as a couple Board appointed NCSG Councilors switched. I don’t remember for sure whether each SG nominated just one as a bloc or we allowed anyone to nominate anyone who wanted to stand (and then the first round shake it down); haven’t had enough coffee yet.
A priori, I would favor an open process where anyone can stand and anyone can be voted for by the Councilors. Candidates would then have to actually reach out equally to all Councilors and persuade them of their views and that they would take the full house’s views into account on the board; the Councilors would be fully empowered to serve as electors and vote for the candidate they think best to represent their constituencies; and the process could be more fluid and less bloc polarized. Freedom on the supply and demand sides has been the standard is pretty much every other policy network or collaboration I’ve participated in, and it has the added benefit of not requiring the sort of procedural negotiations and deadlocks that can make the GNSO so much fun. But others’ mileages may vary…
Anyone have a less foggy memory than I about 2011, or thoughts on the relative merits of different models?
Best,
Bill
Begin forwarded message:
From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: NCPH Voting for Board Seat 14 Date: April 22, 2011 at 4:36:14 PM GMT+2 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com>, "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, "Taylor, David" <David.Taylor@hoganlovells.com>, "jaime@powerself.com.br" <jaime@powerself.com.br>, "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Rosemary Sinclair <Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au>, "HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org" <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>, "Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu" <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Cc: "gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>, Glen De Saint Gery <gnso@mobileemail.vodafone.fr>
Dear All,
A reminder about the voting timeline and the ballots you will receive on Monday 25 April 2011.
Timeline: . First round of voting: open Monday, April 25, close Saturday, April 30 at 11:59 UTC. Ballot to 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 to be tabulated by the GNSO Secretariat and announced Sunday, May 1st.
. Second round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 2, close Friday, May 6 at 11:59 UTC. Run-off between the two leading candidates from first round. Either candidate receiving at least 8 votes wins. Results to be announced Saturday, May 7.
. Third round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 9, close Friday, May 13 at 11:59 UTC. Leading candidate from second round vs. "None of the above." Remaining candidate wins if receives at least 8 votes.
Ballots: The ballots will come from tally@icann.org. Please be sure to complete the webform when you vote because there are too many variables with emails that make it difficult to process the ballot. Please let me know within the first 24 hours if you have not received a ballot.
Please let me know if you will NOT be at the email address this email is sent to for voting purposes or if you need a telephonic vote. If no other email is provided, please be aware that the ballots will be sent individually to each NCPH councilor at the above addresses. In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is closed.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://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.)
I am not sure that schedules will allow for formal meetings with candidates in Singapore. As it is, the CSG and BC agendas are very full. Additionally, attendance from the BC is lighter than usual. I would encourage us to schedule webinars prior to the Singapore meeting with any interested candidates. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Senior Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor, Part of Thomson Reuters Elisa Cooper Chair ICANN Business Constituency 208 389-5779 PH From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 8:22 AM To: gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process hi Bill, thanks for your post. i think it's really helpful. schedule yep, Glen is proposing we follow pretty much the same series of events this time around. i think we'd be miles ahead if we could agree to Glen's proposed structure (we're still fine, the nomination period she's proposing won't end until 17-March). here's the summary (note the gap between nominations includes Singapore, a good time for conversations w/candidates, no?): 3-March - 17-March: Nomination period (results announced 19-March) ICANN Singapore - a good time to interact with candidates - maybe schedule a meeting or two? 28-March - 3-April: First round of voting (announced 5-April) 6-April - 9-April: Second round of voting (results announced 10-April) 10-April: Special GNSO Council meeting to confirm the selection 16-April: Bylaws-mandated deadline for the GNSO to notify the Board 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. 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. my wish for a less time-pressured future is that we figure out a better way, but i'm leaning toward Wolf-Ulrich's view of one candidate per SG this time around. mostly because it's a known thing. i'd be open to creative "tie-breaking" ideas (see below for one that will probably drive people crazy), otherwise it seems possible to just go through a series of tied votes. conversations with candidates i'm also keen to have conversations take place between the candidates and the constituencies. don't care how they're structured, but would like them to be open too. Singapore seems like an ideal time to put these together. Councillor voting 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. 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. for those of you who know me well, i'm wide open to suggestions/changes. thoughts? thanks again Bill. mikey On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:20 AM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch>> wrote: Hi On Mar 6, 2014, at 6:43 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: It would make sense - if this house had a procedure for nomination, voting and selection as requested in the GNSO procedures 2.4.3. Ok, just peeked at old mail. Below is what we did last time- 8 to win, NCSG had undirected voting but (correct me if I'm wrong) CSG did not. First round was 7 votes for Avri and 6 for Bill, second round was 8 for Bill and 5 for Avri as a couple Board appointed NCSG Councilors switched. I don't remember for sure whether each SG nominated just one as a bloc or we allowed anyone to nominate anyone who wanted to stand (and then the first round shake it down); haven't had enough coffee yet. A priori, I would favor an open process where anyone can stand and anyone can be voted for by the Councilors. Candidates would then have to actually reach out equally to all Councilors and persuade them of their views and that they would take the full house's views into account on the board; the Councilors would be fully empowered to serve as electors and vote for the candidate they think best to represent their constituencies; and the process could be more fluid and less bloc polarized. Freedom on the supply and demand sides has been the standard is pretty much every other policy network or collaboration I've participated in, and it has the added benefit of not requiring the sort of procedural negotiations and deadlocks that can make the GNSO so much fun. But others' mileages may vary... Anyone have a less foggy memory than I about 2011, or thoughts on the relative merits of different models? Best, Bill Begin forwarded message: From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: NCPH Voting for Board Seat 14 Date: April 22, 2011 at 4:36:14 PM GMT+2 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com<mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>>, "john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>" <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com<mailto:krosette@cov.com>>, "Taylor, David" <David.Taylor@hoganlovells.com<mailto:David.Taylor@hoganlovells.com>>, "jaime@powerself.com.br<mailto:jaime@powerself.com.br>" <jaime@powerself.com.br<mailto:jaime@powerself.com.br>>, "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>>, Rosemary Sinclair <Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au<mailto:Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au>>, "HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org<mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>" <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org<mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>>, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>>, "Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>" <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>>, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> Cc: "gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>>, Glen De Saint Gery <gnso@mobileemail.vodafone.fr<mailto:gnso@mobileemail.vodafone.fr>> Dear All, A reminder about the voting timeline and the ballots you will receive on Monday 25 April 2011. Timeline: . First round of voting: open Monday, April 25, close Saturday, April 30 at 11:59 UTC. Ballot to 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 to be tabulated by the GNSO Secretariat and announced Sunday, May 1st. . Second round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 2, close Friday, May 6 at 11:59 UTC. Run-off between the two leading candidates from first round. Either candidate receiving at least 8 votes wins. Results to be announced Saturday, May 7. . Third round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 9, close Friday, May 13 at 11:59 UTC. Leading candidate from second round vs. "None of the above." Remaining candidate wins if receives at least 8 votes. Ballots: The ballots will come from tally@icann.org<mailto:tally@icann.org>. Please be sure to complete the webform when you vote because there are too many variables with emails that make it difficult to process the ballot. Please let me know within the first 24 hours if you have not received a ballot. Please let me know if you will NOT be at the email address this email is sent to for voting purposes or if you need a telephonic vote. If no other email is provided, please be aware that the ballots will be sent individually to each NCPH councilor at the above addresses. In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is closed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. 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/> _______________________________________________ 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 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 Elisa, yeah, that’s true — Singapore is going to be crazy tightly scheduled. what if we moved the deadline for nominations forward a day (to the 16th) and then try for webinars on the 17th? people are going to start traveling to Singapore later in that week, so a Monday webinar might pick up a few more people. we could record the Adobe room so that people could listen to it later. we could also build a set of questions (on this list or some other way) in advance and conduct the webinar with all candidates at once — debate style. mikey On Mar 7, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com> wrote:
I am not sure that schedules will allow for formal meetings with candidates in Singapore. As it is, the CSG and BC agendas are very full. Additionally, attendance from the BC is lighter than usual.
I would encourage us to schedule webinars prior to the Singapore meeting with any interested candidates.
Best, Elisa
Elisa Cooper Senior Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor, Part of Thomson Reuters
Elisa Cooper Chair ICANN Business Constituency
208 389-5779 PH
From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 8:22 AM To: gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process
hi Bill,
thanks for your post. i think it’s really helpful.
schedule
yep, Glen is proposing we follow pretty much the same series of events this time around. i think we’d be miles ahead if we could agree to Glen’s proposed structure (we’re still fine, the nomination period she's proposing won’t end until 17-March). here’s the summary (note the gap between nominations includes Singapore, a good time for conversations w/candidates, no?):
3-March — 17-March: Nomination period (results announced 19-March)
ICANN Singapore — a good time to interact with candidates — maybe schedule a meeting or two?
28-March — 3-April: First round of voting (announced 5-April) 6-April — 9-April: Second round of voting (results announced 10-April) 10-April: Special GNSO Council meeting to confirm the selection 16-April: Bylaws-mandated deadline for the GNSO to notify the Board
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.
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. my wish for a less time-pressured future is that we figure out a better way, but i’m leaning toward Wolf-Ulrich’s view of one candidate per SG this time around. mostly because it’s a known thing. i’d be open to creative “tie-breaking” ideas (see below for one that will probably drive people crazy), otherwise it seems possible to just go through a series of tied votes.
conversations with candidates
i’m also keen to have conversations take place between the candidates and the constituencies. don’t care how they’re structured, but would like them to be open too. Singapore seems like an ideal time to put these together.
Councillor voting
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.
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.
for those of you who know me well, i’m wide open to suggestions/changes. thoughts?
thanks again Bill.
mikey
On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:20 AM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> wrote:
Hi
On Mar 6, 2014, at 6:43 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
It would make sense - if this house had a procedure for nomination, voting and selection as requested in the GNSO procedures 2.4.3.
Ok, just peeked at old mail. Below is what we did last time— 8 to win, NCSG had undirected voting but (correct me if I’m wrong) CSG did not. First round was 7 votes for Avri and 6 for Bill, second round was 8 for Bill and 5 for Avri as a couple Board appointed NCSG Councilors switched. I don’t remember for sure whether each SG nominated just one as a bloc or we allowed anyone to nominate anyone who wanted to stand (and then the first round shake it down); haven’t had enough coffee yet.
A priori, I would favor an open process where anyone can stand and anyone can be voted for by the Councilors. Candidates would then have to actually reach out equally to all Councilors and persuade them of their views and that they would take the full house’s views into account on the board; the Councilors would be fully empowered to serve as electors and vote for the candidate they think best to represent their constituencies; and the process could be more fluid and less bloc polarized. Freedom on the supply and demand sides has been the standard is pretty much every other policy network or collaboration I’ve participated in, and it has the added benefit of not requiring the sort of procedural negotiations and deadlocks that can make the GNSO so much fun. But others’ mileages may vary…
Anyone have a less foggy memory than I about 2011, or thoughts on the relative merits of different models?
Best,
Bill
Begin forwarded message:
From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: NCPH Voting for Board Seat 14 Date: April 22, 2011 at 4:36:14 PM GMT+2 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com>, "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, "Taylor, David" <David.Taylor@hoganlovells.com>, "jaime@powerself.com.br" <jaime@powerself.com.br>, "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Rosemary Sinclair <Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au>, "HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org" <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>, "Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu" <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Cc: "gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>, Glen De Saint Gery <gnso@mobileemail.vodafone.fr>
Dear All,
A reminder about the voting timeline and the ballots you will receive on Monday 25 April 2011.
Timeline: . First round of voting: open Monday, April 25, close Saturday, April 30 at 11:59 UTC. Ballot to 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 to be tabulated by the GNSO Secretariat and announced Sunday, May 1st.
. Second round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 2, close Friday, May 6 at 11:59 UTC. Run-off between the two leading candidates from first round. Either candidate receiving at least 8 votes wins. Results to be announced Saturday, May 7.
. Third round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 9, close Friday, May 13 at 11:59 UTC. Leading candidate from second round vs. "None of the above." Remaining candidate wins if receives at least 8 votes.
Ballots: The ballots will come from tally@icann.org. Please be sure to complete the webform when you vote because there are too many variables with emails that make it difficult to process the ballot. Please let me know within the first 24 hours if you have not received a ballot.
Please let me know if you will NOT be at the email address this email is sent to for voting purposes or if you need a telephonic vote. If no other email is provided, please be aware that the ballots will be sent individually to each NCPH councilor at the above addresses. In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is closed.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://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.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
I think that sounds great - and I fully support. Best, Elisa From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@haven2.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2014 11:38 AM To: Elisa Cooper Cc: gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] trying to get unstuck on the Board-election process hi Elisa, yeah, that's true - Singapore is going to be crazy tightly scheduled. what if we moved the deadline for nominations forward a day (to the 16th) and then try for webinars on the 17th? people are going to start traveling to Singapore later in that week, so a Monday webinar might pick up a few more people. we could record the Adobe room so that people could listen to it later. we could also build a set of questions (on this list or some other way) in advance and conduct the webinar with all candidates at once - debate style. mikey On Mar 7, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com<mailto:Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com>> wrote: I am not sure that schedules will allow for formal meetings with candidates in Singapore. As it is, the CSG and BC agendas are very full. Additionally, attendance from the BC is lighter than usual. I would encourage us to schedule webinars prior to the Singapore meeting with any interested candidates. Best, Elisa Elisa Cooper Senior Director of Product Marketing MarkMonitor, Part of Thomson Reuters Elisa Cooper Chair ICANN Business Constituency 208 389-5779 PH From: 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: Friday, March 07, 2014 8:22 AM To: 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 hi Bill, thanks for your post. i think it's really helpful. schedule yep, Glen is proposing we follow pretty much the same series of events this time around. i think we'd be miles ahead if we could agree to Glen's proposed structure (we're still fine, the nomination period she's proposing won't end until 17-March). here's the summary (note the gap between nominations includes Singapore, a good time for conversations w/candidates, no?): 3-March - 17-March: Nomination period (results announced 19-March) ICANN Singapore - a good time to interact with candidates - maybe schedule a meeting or two? 28-March - 3-April: First round of voting (announced 5-April) 6-April - 9-April: Second round of voting (results announced 10-April) 10-April: Special GNSO Council meeting to confirm the selection 16-April: Bylaws-mandated deadline for the GNSO to notify the Board 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. 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. my wish for a less time-pressured future is that we figure out a better way, but i'm leaning toward Wolf-Ulrich's view of one candidate per SG this time around. mostly because it's a known thing. i'd be open to creative "tie-breaking" ideas (see below for one that will probably drive people crazy), otherwise it seems possible to just go through a series of tied votes. conversations with candidates i'm also keen to have conversations take place between the candidates and the constituencies. don't care how they're structured, but would like them to be open too. Singapore seems like an ideal time to put these together. Councillor voting 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. 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. for those of you who know me well, i'm wide open to suggestions/changes. thoughts? thanks again Bill. mikey On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:20 AM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch>> wrote: Hi On Mar 6, 2014, at 6:43 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: It would make sense - if this house had a procedure for nomination, voting and selection as requested in the GNSO procedures 2.4.3. Ok, just peeked at old mail. Below is what we did last time- 8 to win, NCSG had undirected voting but (correct me if I'm wrong) CSG did not. First round was 7 votes for Avri and 6 for Bill, second round was 8 for Bill and 5 for Avri as a couple Board appointed NCSG Councilors switched. I don't remember for sure whether each SG nominated just one as a bloc or we allowed anyone to nominate anyone who wanted to stand (and then the first round shake it down); haven't had enough coffee yet. A priori, I would favor an open process where anyone can stand and anyone can be voted for by the Councilors. Candidates would then have to actually reach out equally to all Councilors and persuade them of their views and that they would take the full house's views into account on the board; the Councilors would be fully empowered to serve as electors and vote for the candidate they think best to represent their constituencies; and the process could be more fluid and less bloc polarized. Freedom on the supply and demand sides has been the standard is pretty much every other policy network or collaboration I've participated in, and it has the added benefit of not requiring the sort of procedural negotiations and deadlocks that can make the GNSO so much fun. But others' mileages may vary... Anyone have a less foggy memory than I about 2011, or thoughts on the relative merits of different models? Best, Bill Begin forwarded message: From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: NCPH Voting for Board Seat 14 Date: April 22, 2011 at 4:36:14 PM GMT+2 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com<mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>>, "john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>" <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com<mailto:krosette@cov.com>>, "Taylor, David" <David.Taylor@hoganlovells.com<mailto:David.Taylor@hoganlovells.com>>, "jaime@powerself.com.br<mailto:jaime@powerself.com.br>" <jaime@powerself.com.br<mailto:jaime@powerself.com.br>>, "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>>, Rosemary Sinclair <Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au<mailto:Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au>>, "HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org<mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>" <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org<mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>>, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>>, "Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>" <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>>, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> Cc: "gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>>, Glen De Saint Gery <gnso@mobileemail.vodafone.fr<mailto:gnso@mobileemail.vodafone.fr>> Dear All, A reminder about the voting timeline and the ballots you will receive on Monday 25 April 2011. Timeline: . First round of voting: open Monday, April 25, close Saturday, April 30 at 11:59 UTC. Ballot to 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 to be tabulated by the GNSO Secretariat and announced Sunday, May 1st. . Second round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 2, close Friday, May 6 at 11:59 UTC. Run-off between the two leading candidates from first round. Either candidate receiving at least 8 votes wins. Results to be announced Saturday, May 7. . Third round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 9, close Friday, May 13 at 11:59 UTC. Leading candidate from second round vs. "None of the above." Remaining candidate wins if receives at least 8 votes. Ballots: The ballots will come from tally@icann.org<mailto:tally@icann.org>. Please be sure to complete the webform when you vote because there are too many variables with emails that make it difficult to process the ballot. Please let me know within the first 24 hours if you have not received a ballot. Please let me know if you will NOT be at the email address this email is sent to for voting purposes or if you need a telephonic vote. If no other email is provided, please be aware that the ballots will be sent individually to each NCPH councilor at the above addresses. In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is closed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. 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/> _______________________________________________ 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 PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
Mikey and others: I would support an open field. One candidate per SG sets the SGs against each other, and seems to assume that all SGs are blocs. I don't like the assumption any more than I like seeing it put into practice ;-) BTW I also belioeve that constituency charters should not be allowed to constrain Council votes, that's a really terrible practice and should be banned. From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor 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. my wish for a less time-pressured future is that we figure out a better way, but i'm leaning toward Wolf-Ulrich's view of one candidate per SG this time around. mostly because it's a known thing. i'd be open to creative "tie-breaking" ideas (see below for one that will probably drive people crazy), otherwise it seems possible to just go through a series of tied votes. conversations with candidates i'm also keen to have conversations take place between the candidates and the constituencies. don't care how they're structured, but would like them to be open too. Singapore seems like an ideal time to put these together. Councillor voting 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. 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. for those of you who know me well, i'm wide open to suggestions/changes. thoughts? thanks again Bill. mikey On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:20 AM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch>> wrote: Hi On Mar 6, 2014, at 6:43 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> wrote: It would make sense - if this house had a procedure for nomination, voting and selection as requested in the GNSO procedures 2.4.3. Ok, just peeked at old mail. Below is what we did last time- 8 to win, NCSG had undirected voting but (correct me if I'm wrong) CSG did not. First round was 7 votes for Avri and 6 for Bill, second round was 8 for Bill and 5 for Avri as a couple Board appointed NCSG Councilors switched. I don't remember for sure whether each SG nominated just one as a bloc or we allowed anyone to nominate anyone who wanted to stand (and then the first round shake it down); haven't had enough coffee yet. A priori, I would favor an open process where anyone can stand and anyone can be voted for by the Councilors. Candidates would then have to actually reach out equally to all Councilors and persuade them of their views and that they would take the full house's views into account on the board; the Councilors would be fully empowered to serve as electors and vote for the candidate they think best to represent their constituencies; and the process could be more fluid and less bloc polarized. Freedom on the supply and demand sides has been the standard is pretty much every other policy network or collaboration I've participated in, and it has the added benefit of not requiring the sort of procedural negotiations and deadlocks that can make the GNSO so much fun. But others' mileages may vary... Anyone have a less foggy memory than I about 2011, or thoughts on the relative merits of different models? Best, Bill Begin forwarded message: From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org<mailto:Glen@icann.org>> Subject: NCPH Voting for Board Seat 14 Date: April 22, 2011 at 4:36:14 PM GMT+2 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com<mailto:zahid@dndrc.com>>, "john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>" <john@crediblecontext.com<mailto:john@crediblecontext.com>>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com<mailto:krosette@cov.com>>, "Taylor, David" <David.Taylor@hoganlovells.com<mailto:David.Taylor@hoganlovells.com>>, "jaime@powerself.com.br<mailto:jaime@powerself.com.br>" <jaime@powerself.com.br<mailto:jaime@powerself.com.br>>, "KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>" <KnobenW@telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>>, Rosemary Sinclair <Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au<mailto:Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au>>, "HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org<mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>" <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org<mailto:HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com>>, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>>, "Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>" <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>>, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com<mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com>> Cc: "gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>>, Glen De Saint Gery <gnso@mobileemail.vodafone.fr<mailto:gnso@mobileemail.vodafone.fr>> Dear All, A reminder about the voting timeline and the ballots you will receive on Monday 25 April 2011. Timeline: . First round of voting: open Monday, April 25, close Saturday, April 30 at 11:59 UTC. Ballot to 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 to be tabulated by the GNSO Secretariat and announced Sunday, May 1st. . Second round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 2, close Friday, May 6 at 11:59 UTC. Run-off between the two leading candidates from first round. Either candidate receiving at least 8 votes wins. Results to be announced Saturday, May 7. . Third round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 9, close Friday, May 13 at 11:59 UTC. Leading candidate from second round vs. "None of the above." Remaining candidate wins if receives at least 8 votes. Ballots: The ballots will come from tally@icann.org<mailto:tally@icann.org>. Please be sure to complete the webform when you vote because there are too many variables with emails that make it difficult to process the ballot. Please let me know within the first 24 hours if you have not received a ballot. Please let me know if you will NOT be at the email address this email is sent to for voting purposes or if you need a telephonic vote. If no other email is provided, please be aware that the ballots will be sent individually to each NCPH councilor at the above addresses. In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is closed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. 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/> _______________________________________________ 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 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 Milton, i would love an open field. in fact, i would add to the mix a preference for consensus-based decision-making process rather than voting. i find myself way outside my comfort zone in this conversation and i think the main reason is because i’m inexperienced in a “voting”, “win/lose” “sides” political environment. i also find us at a disadvantage because we’re operating as a “group” but we don’t have a leader that we all trust. might as well get that stinker out there too as long as i’m digging my own grave. :-) harkening back to my long post about the state of conflict we’re in, i think we need to be as open as we can be under the current framework. remember at least in the ISPCP these aren’t assumptions, there are Charter words that define my actions as a Councilor. i’m influential, but not independent. my approach has been to shed as much positive light on the current state as i can, ask for creative thinking about how we deal with this situation as fairly as we can, and launch a longer discussion towards maybe finding a better way. mikey On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:11 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
Mikey and others: I would support an open field. One candidate per SG sets the SGs against each other, and seems to assume that all SGs are blocs. I don’t like the assumption any more than I like seeing it put into practice ;-) BTW I also belioeve that constituency charters should not be allowed to constrain Council votes, that’s a really terrible practice and should be banned.
From: gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
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. my wish for a less time-pressured future is that we figure out a better way, but i’m leaning toward Wolf-Ulrich’s view of one candidate per SG this time around. mostly because it’s a known thing. i’d be open to creative “tie-breaking” ideas (see below for one that will probably drive people crazy), otherwise it seems possible to just go through a series of tied votes.
conversations with candidates
i’m also keen to have conversations take place between the candidates and the constituencies. don’t care how they’re structured, but would like them to be open too. Singapore seems like an ideal time to put these together.
Councillor voting
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.
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.
for those of you who know me well, i’m wide open to suggestions/changes. thoughts?
thanks again Bill.
mikey
On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:20 AM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> wrote:
Hi
On Mar 6, 2014, at 6:43 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
It would make sense - if this house had a procedure for nomination, voting and selection as requested in the GNSO procedures 2.4.3.
Ok, just peeked at old mail. Below is what we did last time— 8 to win, NCSG had undirected voting but (correct me if I’m wrong) CSG did not. First round was 7 votes for Avri and 6 for Bill, second round was 8 for Bill and 5 for Avri as a couple Board appointed NCSG Councilors switched. I don’t remember for sure whether each SG nominated just one as a bloc or we allowed anyone to nominate anyone who wanted to stand (and then the first round shake it down); haven’t had enough coffee yet.
A priori, I would favor an open process where anyone can stand and anyone can be voted for by the Councilors. Candidates would then have to actually reach out equally to all Councilors and persuade them of their views and that they would take the full house’s views into account on the board; the Councilors would be fully empowered to serve as electors and vote for the candidate they think best to represent their constituencies; and the process could be more fluid and less bloc polarized. Freedom on the supply and demand sides has been the standard is pretty much every other policy network or collaboration I’ve participated in, and it has the added benefit of not requiring the sort of procedural negotiations and deadlocks that can make the GNSO so much fun. But others’ mileages may vary…
Anyone have a less foggy memory than I about 2011, or thoughts on the relative merits of different models?
Best,
Bill
Begin forwarded message:
From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org> Subject: NCPH Voting for Board Seat 14 Date: April 22, 2011 at 4:36:14 PM GMT+2 To: Zahid Jamil <zahid@dndrc.com>, "john@crediblecontext.com" <john@crediblecontext.com>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@cov.com>, "Taylor, David" <David.Taylor@hoganlovells.com>, "jaime@powerself.com.br" <jaime@powerself.com.br>, "KnobenW@telekom.de" <KnobenW@telekom.de>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Rosemary Sinclair <Rosemary.Sinclair@atug.org.au>, "HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org" <HughesDeb@usa.redcross.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com>, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>, "Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu" <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>, Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@gmail.com> Cc: "gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org" <gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>, Glen De Saint Gery <gnso@mobileemail.vodafone.fr>
Dear All,
A reminder about the voting timeline and the ballots you will receive on Monday 25 April 2011.
Timeline: . First round of voting: open Monday, April 25, close Saturday, April 30 at 11:59 UTC. Ballot to 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 to be tabulated by the GNSO Secretariat and announced Sunday, May 1st.
. Second round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 2, close Friday, May 6 at 11:59 UTC. Run-off between the two leading candidates from first round. Either candidate receiving at least 8 votes wins. Results to be announced Saturday, May 7.
. Third round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 9, close Friday, May 13 at 11:59 UTC. Leading candidate from second round vs. "None of the above." Remaining candidate wins if receives at least 8 votes.
Ballots: The ballots will come from tally@icann.org. Please be sure to complete the webform when you vote because there are too many variables with emails that make it difficult to process the ballot. Please let me know within the first 24 hours if you have not received a ballot.
Please let me know if you will NOT be at the email address this email is sent to for voting purposes or if you need a telephonic vote. If no other email is provided, please be aware that the ballots will be sent individually to each NCPH councilor at the above addresses. In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is closed.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards,
Glen
Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org http://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.)
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
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
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.)
Hi Mickey, I think we should at least to agree on timeline and in order to have enough time for nomination, and"interviewing" candidates and finally having the voting (in several rounds depending the option we agree on) we can have vote round every 3 days, it is possible. next sunday, it will be just one month before confirming the elected board member and after that we will be in singapore. better to prepare prior to that and to have clear plan. Best, Rafik 2014-03-08 22:04 GMT+09:00 Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>:
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.)
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list Gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership
hi Rafik, yep, i agree. i think the CSG leaders met last night. any of you want to chime in here? i sortof feel like this is in your court. we are indeed starting to stress the schedule a bit. mikey On Mar 11, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Mickey,
I think we should at least to agree on timeline and in order to have enough time for nomination, and"interviewing" candidates and finally having the voting (in several rounds depending the option we agree on) we can have vote round every 3 days, it is possible. next sunday, it will be just one month before confirming the elected board member and after that we will be in singapore. better to prepare prior to that and to have clear plan.
Best,
Rafik
2014-03-08 22:04 GMT+09:00 Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>: 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.)
_______________________________________________ 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.)
Hello, any update from CSG colleagues? we need to act quickly. Rafik 2014-03-11 23:57 GMT+09:00 Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>:
hi Rafik,
yep, i agree. i think the CSG leaders met last night. any of you want to chime in here? i sortof feel like this is in your court. we are indeed starting to stress the schedule a bit.
mikey
On Mar 11, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Mickey,
I think we should at least to agree on timeline and in order to have enough time for nomination, and"interviewing" candidates and finally having the voting (in several rounds depending the option we agree on) we can have vote round every 3 days, it is possible. next sunday, it will be just one month before confirming the elected board member and after that we will be in singapore. better to prepare prior to that and to have clear plan.
Best,
Rafik
2014-03-08 22:04 GMT+09:00 Mike O'Connor <mike@haven2.com>:
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.)
_______________________________________________ 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.)
Hi, I agree with all of what you said. I for one am happy to see you boldly step into this and would be grateful if you would be the pathfinder to guide us through this thicket. Of course with the agreement of the others on this list. avri On 06-Mar-14 14:31, Mike O'Connor wrote:
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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>
http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>
_______________________________________________ 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
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com <http://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
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
Hi On Mar 6, 2014, at 4:20 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Mickey,
as several of us are struggling for some deadlines,
Yes
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 :)
Agree
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,
+1 BD
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), Art. X, Section 3(6))
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. 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.)
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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list Gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership
*********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake@uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake@gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************
participants (11)
-
Avri Doria -
Elisa Cooper -
Glen de Saint Géry -
John Berard -
Mike O'Connor -
Milton L Mueller -
Rafik Dammak -
Reed, Daniel A -
William Drake -
Winterfeldt, Brian J. -
WUKnoben