Provisional election Results

[Maria Farrell]

+1.

Maria

On 21 October 2011 10:20, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

>
>
> On Oct 21, 2011, at 4:23 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote:
>
> In my Kiswahili language lies a proverb, “asiyekubali kushindwa sio
> mshindani” [one that never agrees to defeat can never be a winner]
>
>
> This seems apt.
>
> My collegial advice to our friends in NPOC:
>
> 1.  Recruit organizations represented by identifiable members or staff
> who actually wish to participate in NCSG and ICANN beyond materializing to
> vote when prompted from D.C.
>
> 2.  Have them submit their membership applications themselves to the Exec
> Committee.  Do this well in advance of the next election, rather than at the
> 11th hour, so EC volunteers have sufficient time to properly vet their
> applications.  If that vetting does not yield your desired results, provide
> additional information and if necessary, take steps specified in the charter
> in hopes of achieving better outcomes.
>
> 3.  Have open dialogue on a publicly archived listserv to define a
> distinctive, substantive policy agenda of operational concerns pertaining to
> the range of GNSO issues.  If you largely focus on trademark protection for
> your member organizations, other people will quite naturally conclude that
> you are only concerned with trademark protection for your member
> organizations.
>
> 4.  Have the above mentioned people bring those concerns to the NCSG list
> and debate them with the wider membership so everyone knows who they are,
> and so we can collectively identify where we all agree and can work together
> in Council, working groups, etc., and where we need to agree to disagree and
> represent our views separately in ICANN.  If you actually talk to NCUC
> members you may find that they share some of said operational concerns and
> will back you. Eschew the silo mentality, it doesn't matter exactly how many
> of your own people are on Council at any given time if you persuade the SG
> as a whole that something is right to do.
>
> 5.  Having done the above, get some of your people to stand for election in
> the next cycle.  If they're known and have a record of good faith
> participation they may get NCUC votes, irrespective of whether there's
> agreement on all points.  Win by persuading, rather than by trying to stack
> the deck.
>
> 6.  Terminate your long standing practices of communicating privately with
> staff and board members whenever you want something or have concerns and
> then refusing to answer questions from others about this.  It is really
> uncollegial and not at all "trust building" when, as just happened with your
> travel funding complaint,  we receive email from the chair of the board
> saying he's considering how to respond to you but we don't even know what
> your complaint is.  It is nice that for the first time, you decided to share
> a complaint letter, on the election (although not so nice that your VC spent
> two hours on a call with us the night prior without mentioning it).  Still,
> it would be better to try sorting out differences in house rather than
> immediately running to the board and demanding that the charter be subverted
> in order to mandate your desired outcomes.
>
> This is not rocket science.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111021/40a8d7fa/attachment-0001.html>