<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default">Actually no Ron. I did not say what I wanted to say fully before the elections, specifically I did not want to provide the solutions before the elections so that members can just elect whoever they want and not have this discussion fully. this is not necessarily about David, no one is disputing the voters wisdom. But doesn't mean that the Executive Committee and the members might want to change the ways. it's for members to stop such things if they deem appropriate. Now that the election is over, I can say a lot and I can say I am well informed and not just saying things out of passion. I would like our members to make informed decisions in the future. </div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default">This is done and dusted. I have suggested solutions if members want they can pick them up if not they won't. I find it truly offensive to be told to calm down, not to be emotional, that I spoke out of passion [ speaking out of passion can imply that the person you are responding to is not really arguing rationally, If you mean that, and think I was not rational, I will explain myself]! Maybe there is good intention behind using such terms but it really is not the best way of having a discussion about our governance (This is not the first time at NCUC and NCSG I am being told to stop talking, which is wrong in a lot of ways but out of scope here)</div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default">To David: elected positions are different. yes I am NCSG chair but I am not NCUC chair at the same time. and I am a member of EPDP but I tried to do everything in my power to be on top of things and it's not cross-constituency. I believe a lot of commitment is needed for the "elected" role and having two elected roles in two constituencies is just not right. But that's my opinion. </div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default">and to the newly elected Executive Committee members:</div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default">NCUC chair is a voluntary position. NCUC chair should not always prompt you to do things. You should work with her side by side, respond to her requests promptly and as much as you can, carry the load with her. Some of you are now on your third term. You know what is going on. Help your colleagues and the chair. I have seen sometimes on NCUC EC list that some members ask for a Doodle Poll to be sent to them by the Chair! It's just plain wrong. asking Maryam to do everything is wrong too. Please do at least 1/3 of what the chair does. Please attend the meetings, please weigh in on emails and requests in a timely manner and please help your region to be active and understand our mission. </div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"> We have elections to be able to hold our leaders accountable. I enjoy exercising that right. <br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><br></div><br class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:39 AM David Cake <<a href="mailto:dave@davecake.net">dave@davecake.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
> On 10 Oct 2018, at 6:59 am, Ayden Férdeline <<a href="mailto:icann@ferdeline.com" target="_blank">icann@ferdeline.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Thank you for highlighting this, Farzaneh.<br>
> <br>
> Speaking as an NCUC member I am greatly concerned by this "position shopping." It does not serve us well to have the one person serving in so many leadership positions concurrently; and as I have said before, I think it shows a lack of integrity and poor judgement for someone to keep taking on more roles when they are not doing the work.<br>
<br>
I appreciate you enjoy the opportunity for gratuitous personal abuse, but I do not.<br>
<br>
> I would like to ask David, if he accepts this seat, to make a commitment not to use any NCUC travel resources during his term. We have precious limited resources within the NCUC and I would like to see these resources allocated to our members with no other ICANN-related commitments. If David has four leadership roles, he has ample opportunity elsewhere to fund his travel to ICANN meetings.<br>
<br>
How did two become four? I now hold two elected positions. Their terms do not overlap.<br>
Neither of them guarantees travel resources. Also, some of those travel resources are shared between the two constituencies.<br>
You would like to see them dedicated to members with no other ICANN related commitments? So, do you believe that extends to all ICANN related roles, or only the one constituency you do not like? You yourself are both a GNSO Council member, AND a full delegate on the Temp Spec EPDP, both of which involve a higher time commitment than an EC position (and both of which provide travel resources)? Farzaneh is both NCSG Chair, and a full delegate on the Temp Soec EPDP, which again, both have a higher time commitment than an EC member? It appears time commitment is not the issue here, or travel resources, but you perceiving a conflict where others do not.<br>
I do hope that some resources will be freed up for other EC members and others.<br>
<br>
> I think this is a most reasonable request.<br>
<br>
You have a lot of opinions I disagree with, this is only one of them.<br>
<br>
> In addition, I understand David is on the leadership team of the RDS PDP WG which, while currently dormant, may come back to life in the near future.<br>
<br>
It is in the process of termination, which you could have easily discovered by asking anyone at all, but particularly me, staff, or the Council liaison to the group (Stephanie).<br>
I did use the funding available for working group leadership in the past (to attend the Puerto Rico meeting), and did so with the intention of saving constituency/SG resources, and it was my application for that travel funding which meant I was not able to attend the Panama City meeting (I successfully applied for the funding, but it was withdrawn close to the meeting when the WG was suspended). But as the WG is in the process of termination, I do not expect that is a likely option for me (though I’m glad it continues to support some of other, very policy active members).<br>
<br>
I will add that if I thought there was a real chance of the RDS WG re-starting its work directly, I would have declined the EC nomination - the amount of work involved in that WG was significant, 3.5 hours of meetings every week in addition to mailing lists and other issues, plus periodic meetings with other bodies. I do very much appreciate that ICANN is beginning to support policy work without the<br>
<br>
> This would be a fifth leadership position for David — in addition to being an NCSG alternate to the EPDP. David has only been on one of the 17 EPDP calls so far,<br>
<br>
As you know, I am able to be on a call only when NCSG full members of the group cannot make the call and nominate me as an alternate. I think it is great that our NCSG team have been diligent in attending calls, and we also have two other excellent alternates who often find the time zone easier. I have always volunteered to serve as alternate when practical. As you know, NCSG delegates have actually been fairly strong advocates for limiting alternate participation in general. I find the attempt to cast the limited opportunities for participation of alternates, when you understand that situation and have been an advocate of limited alternate participation yourself, as a personal failing disingenuous.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>