Wolf-Ulrich You’re correct pointing out the previous approach where a nominee was put forward from each house, but that situation was a little different. There wasn’t total support for Stephane, and for some Olga was a stronger candidate, particularly from the NCPH perspective. This time it’s a little different as few would argue that Jonathan wouldn’t fill the role of a strong but neutral chair. You are of course entitled to make the proposal, but as you pointed out previously, early indications are that both the BC and the IPC will back Jonathon in the vote. That could place Thomas in a situation where he effectively gets zero, or very few votes, which wouldn’t reflect particularly well, particularly as most of us would agree he is a strong candidate. Tony From: ispcp-private-bounces@server.haven2.com [mailto:ispcp-private-bounces@server.haven2.com] On Behalf Of KnobenW@telekom.de Sent: 25 September 2012 07:20 To: mike@haven2.com; ispcp-private@server.haven2.com Subject: Re: [Ispcp-private] GNSO Council elections All, I also agree with Tony's analysis with one exception. First I think there's a misprint: support for Jonathan within the CSG may come from the BC and IPC (not NCUC). We're still discussing the nomination of chair candidates - not yet the election itself nor the (potential) result of it. However I admit that in this context we have to take the candidates' electibility into consideration, too. If the NCPH couldn't get to a consensus with respect to Jonathan or Thomas there's nothing preventing the house to nominate a candidate because the members are convinced she/he could run the council best - and to split the votes during elections. Nominating a candidate different from the CPH in my eyes is merely a democratic approach. What then happens in the election is just a procedural question which is described in the rules. The houses did exactly the same 2 years ago: Stéphane was the CPH candidate, Olga Cavalli the NCPH one - and the NCPH didn't vote unanimously for Olga. According to the rules a second voting round followod with just Stéphane as candidate and the "none of the above" option. Olga was out of this round because she collected less votes in the 1st round than Stéphane. I'm in favour to this approach and would also like to bring it to the CSG table before the NCPH later today. If that is accepted we have to be very open to Thomas. He could then decide whether to accept the nomination. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: ispcp-private-bounces@server.haven2.com [mailto:ispcp-private-bounces@server.haven2.com] Im Auftrag von Mike O'Connor Gesendet: Montag, 24. September 2012 21:32 An: ispcp-private@server.haven2.com Betreff: Re: [Ispcp-private] GNSO Council elections i've worked with Jeff on a lot of working groups and would agree. Jeff's a great guy, but when he goes down a track he finds it really difficult to back himself out. that makes him a really effective advocate, but i haven't seen him as a coalition-builder. so i would love an outcome that led to either of the other two candidates. mikey On Sep 24, 2012, at 2:09 PM, "Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@antel.com.uy> wrote: Dear Tony, I agree with your analysis. I think both Jonathan and Thomas are good candidates but from my, not overly extensive, relation with them I would prefer Jonathan, I think he can be a better Chairman. But from the different conversations it seems clear that Jonathan won’t accept the nomination unless Jeff Neuman withdrews his, which doesn’t seem to be the case for now. My impression of Jeff, mainly though my participation in the IOC/RC DT, is that he tends to try to impose his personal opinion and to be too accommodating to the Council’s decisions or instructions. I as said, my interaction with the other GNSO Council members hasn’t been very extensive so I might be mistaken with my judgment. Best regards, Osvaldo _____ De: <mailto:ispcp-private-bounces@server.haven2.com> ispcp-private-bounces@server.haven2.com [mailto:ispcp- <mailto:private-bounces@server.haven2.com> private-bounces@server.haven2.com] En nombre de tony holmes Enviado el: Lunes, 24 de Septiembre de 2012 15:41 Para: <mailto:ispcp-private@server.haven2.com> ispcp-private@server.haven2.com Asunto: [Ispcp-private] GNSO Council elections All We are very close to the closing date for nominations for the positions of chair and vice-chair for the GNSO Council (26th September). That doesn’t leave us much time to act, yet we still don’t have a final view of the candidates. It appears that the contracted parties house will nominate either Jeff Neuman or Jonathan Robinson for Chair. Thomas Rickert a nom-com appointee to the council but also a member of the ISPCP is also likely to stand. We need to make a choice of who to support. Taking account of the need for the chair to be neutral on all issues, I would like to propose if the choice is between Jeff and Thomas the ISPs offer support for Thomas. If the choice is between Jonathan and Thomas it is a tougher call as both have shown they have the required qualities to be neutral and do a good job. My personal view is to offer support for the candidate that appears most electable in that case. Assuming the contracted parties house back their nominee (Jonathan) and any other Constituency within the CSG backs him (it currently appears both the NCUC and the BC may), Thomas cannot win. If that situation occurs there appears little point in offering support for a candidate who cannot win. Particularly as both appear to be good candidates. For the vice chair position currently there is only one candidate, Joy Heddicoat, which makes that an easy decision. I would welcome your views and advice as discussion of this issue is being channelled through the CSG. It would be particularly helpful if our council representatives, Wolf and Osvaldo could also express their opinions as they’ve worked alongside all potential candidates. Please respond with your advice and thoughts to this list. Time is very tight. Regards Tony _____ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. _______________________________________________ Ispcp-private mailing list <mailto:Ispcp-private@server.haven2.com> Ispcp-private@server.haven2.com <http://server.haven2.com/mailman/listinfo/ispcp-private> http://server.haven2.com/mailman/listinfo/ispcp-private - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)