<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class=""> Also it's not bad practice to give space to someone newer because frankly, NCUC EC is not really at a stage that needs too much experience (it's not drafting bylaws) but is in need of hard work and energy. I am surprised and very disappointed that some of the veterans even supported Dave's nomination. </span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div>Some of the veterans disagree with your opinion that the EC does not need experience. It is literally as simple as that. That was the reason I was asked to run, and I agreed because I think there is some truth to it. I think this difference of opinion is understandable, but nonetheless we disagree on this point. </div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class="">And the nomination came from someone who had nominated Dave repeatedly for the past elections with no verifiable or minimal activities at NCUC/NCSG.</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div>And was supported by a previous NCUC Chair. I consider the latter more important than picking on James. </div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class=""> Anyhow, Dave has been elected but please note the following and consider if you want to take any of the actions in the future. I am at the end of NCSG chair term which will happen at the end of AGM but I think if NCUC/NPOC/NCSG want to have a discussion about position shopping at constituency and stakeholder group level, they should be able to do so. </span></p></div></div></div></blockquote>I fully support an open discussion about potential changes to overlap, but I do not believe ‘position shopping’ is a useful way to frame the issue. </div><div>FWIW, I fully support disengaging travel support and other resources from internal positions where appropriate, but it is a complex discussion that needs some formal discussion. I will certainly discuss with Stephanie as to how to facilitate that discussion, and how to handle issues as they come up. <br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class=""><br class=""></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class="">***</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class=""><br class=""></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class="">There is nothing in the two Constituencies’ or the NCSG’s Charters that speak to this situation at all. Similarly, the overall GNSO Operating Procedures are silent on the matter (as are the ICANN Bylaws). What the two Constituencies’ Charters do seem to contemplate, however, is the need to avoid actual or potential conflicts of interest, e.g.: <i class="">“The standards for performing the duties of NCUC leadership positions include impartiality, accountability, and avoidance of conflicts of interest”</i> (from the NCUC Charter) and <i class="">“The standards for leadership positions including impartiality, accountability, and avoidance (or disclosure and members’ consent) of potential conflicts of interest” </i>(from the NPOC Charter, which goes on to provide that <i class="">“All officers have a duty to perform their roles with diligence and loyalty to the NPOC, and … shall promptly notify the EC, and Constituency Members, of any potential conflict of interest that may arise during their term”)</i>.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="" class=""><u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class=""> <u class=""></u><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class="">Additionally, as Chair of NPOC’s Policy Committee (PC), David is automatically a member also of the NPOC Executive Committee (as specified in the NPOC Charter) and also a member of the NCSG PC (this latter appointment is not documented in the NPOC Charter but apparently this has been the established practice within NPOC for some time).</span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class=""> Therefore, <u class="">Dave will actually hold four leadership positions across both constituencies as well as at the SG level – NPOC ExCom, NPOC PC, NCUC ExCom and NCSG PC</u>.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="" class=""><u class=""></u></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div>I find this argument dubious - it's turning roles into positions.Yes, the one role serves on multiple committees. But by this same reasoning, you would hold multiple leadership positions in NCSG yourself, as an ex-officio member of NCSG-FC and NCSG-PC, and that excluding roles like SOAC Chairs as separate committees. </div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class=""><u class=""></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class=""> </span>The NCUC ExCom and membership <u class="">may </u>want to consider the following:</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class=""><br class=""></span></p><ul type="disc" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-top:0cm" class=""><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 15px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class="">Whether to request that David provide a written statement clarifying that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, there are no conflicts of interest for him to hold these positions at this time;</span><span lang="EN-US" class=""><u class=""></u></span></li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I do not believe there any intrinsic conflicts of interest, and I do not know of any current ones that exist, other than the practical ones around competition for shared resources (which I will declare and/or recuse myself from as appropriate, but with a goal of increasing cooperation). </div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style=""><ul type="disc" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-top:0cm" class=""><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 15px;"><span lang="EN-US" class=""><u class=""></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 15px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class="">Whether to request that David agree that, should any potential conflict arise during his term on any of these committees, he should immediately declare them to the NCUC, NPOC and NCSG chairs;</span><span lang="EN-US" class=""><u class=""></u></span></li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I believe every member of any ICANN position should declare conflicts of interest when they occur, and are certainly not limited to constituency related issues (in fact, those dealing with contracted parties and employment, for example, are very significant). I do not believe your course of action is going to always be appropriate - there may be points where it is not appropriate to share a conflict of interest with every other group, such as it it occurs during one groups non-public discussion (conflict of interest issues also cover information sharing), but in those cases recusion is the normal process. I think that declaring a conflict of interest to the group in which discussion occurs is appropriate, and implicit in the charter of NCUC. </div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style=""><ul type="disc" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-top:0cm" class=""><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 15px;"><span lang="EN-US" class=""><u class=""></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 15px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class="">What actions may be available to the NCUC, NPOC and NCSG leadership should that declaration actually be made;</span><span lang="EN-US" class=""><u class=""></u></span></li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>We should have relevant conflict of interest procedures for every committee we are on, bearing in mind particularly that the NCSG Charter and NCUC Charter both have conflict of interest clauses, and the NPOC Charter is in the middle of a revision process currently. </div><div>In particular, NCUC Charter section VII.H, is relevant here, which says that the NCUC EC should develop procedures for removal of officers due to conflict of interest, but does not specify rules for handling of declared conflict of interest. Due to the difficulties associated with the handling of a more significant conflict of interest (dealing with a contracted party) a few years ago, we certainly should have clear rules for removal, but we also need rules for handling declared conflict of interest and recusal, which of course cover a very wide range of circumstances. A good working basis should be found in any reasonable guide to standing orders and organisational procedure, however. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style=""><ul type="disc" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-top:0cm" class=""><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 15px;"><span lang="EN-US" class=""><u class=""></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 15px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class="">Whether it may be possible to ask David not to run for any other appointments or positions that may need to be made during this term (e.g. PIR rep, NCSG PC rep from NCUC, etc.);</span><span lang="EN-US" class=""><u class=""></u></span></li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I will consider workload and conflict of interest in any further positions I apply for, and I am sure that the ECs will too. </div><div>I will note that there is part of this term that does not overlap with the NPOC term, and also that it is my experience that circumstances can change significantly within a single term. But I do not anticipate putting myself for any further role at this point in time. I think it would be nonsensical to put me forward as NCSG PC rep while I am already on the PC otherwise, but circumstances may change. </div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style=""><ul type="disc" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-top:0cm" class=""><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 15px;"><span lang="EN-US" class=""><u class=""></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 15px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class="">Whether travel funding – if available via any of these positions – can and should be reallocated to other members; and</span><span lang="EN-US" class=""><u class=""></u></span></li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I believe that travel funding is a decision for the relevant ECs, and as you know involves resources that are not specific to either constituency. I certainly support re-allocation where appropriate, but I always support that for travel funding where applicable. </div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style=""><ul type="disc" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-top:0cm" class=""><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 15px;"><span lang="EN-US" class=""><u class=""></u></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 15px;"><span lang="EN-US" style="" class="">Whether new provisions need to be put into place before the next term if this situation is considered sufficiently problematic by NCUC, NPOC and/or NCSG.</span></li></ul></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I think this is a question largely for the NCSG EC as to how to handle procedurally, but I appreciate it. I think it appropriate that I have no procedural role within that process, but I am certainly willing to be involved in discussion. </div><div><br class=""></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>David</div><br class=""></body></html>