[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Delegate to the ICANN 2016 NominatingCommittee

[James Gannon]

Jean-Jacques,

Given that the email was a direct forwarding without any request from Bill or any other statement of interest I don’t see any other possible interpretation of the email. I would be genuinely interested in hearing any alternative interpretation given that the text of the email was directly from ICANN NomCom staff.

We can certainly look at clarity in communications going forward but I cannot agree that there was any suggestion of mentioning names before the email was sent by Bill, indeed it was AE and myself who nominated Bill as a candidate and I stand by my nomination.

Franky I think that this discussion is undermining the charter defined role of the EC in selecting NCUCs NomCom appointee. A call for candidates was put forward and a number of us have nominated a candidate to be considered by the EC of NCUC. This is not to the exclusion of any other candidates being nominated by other NCUC members in good standing nor indeed self-nomination by any member. To suggest otherwise or to suggest that we are approaching this in a manner of acclimation is I believe disingenuous and not reflective of any of the discussions that have taken place.

-James




> On 5 Aug 2015, at 20:58, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net> wrote:
> 
> Hello James,
> 
> thanks. Your quick response brings up two additional remarks, WHICH I OFFER WHILE CLEARLY SEPARATING THEM FROM ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MERITS OF CANDIDATES :
> 
> - You suggest that the email from the outgoing Chair was in fact a call for candidates, but that is not how I understood the text. The appropriate method must be a clear call for candidates from the EC, or on its behalf, and this should be issued before any names are mentioned.
> 
> - Best practices on selection procedures make clear that putting forward a name prior to an open call for candidates frequently has a deterrent effect on the willingness of some members to declare their candidacy, and may influence both the selection process and the final outcome.
> 
> If I take the liberty of adding these comments, it is because the global community of Internet users is closely watching the outcome of work in ATRT, CWG and CCWG, which together constitute an unprecedented drive to improve accountability and transparency in the ICANN ecosystem. As a focal point for non-commercial users, NCUC can only gain from demonstrating its commitment to these efforts.
> 
> Best regards,
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
> Cc: "William Drake" <william.drake at uzh.ch>, "NCUC-discuss" <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> Envoyé: Mercredi 5 Août 2015 21:03:15
> Objet: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC Delegate to the ICANN	2016 NominatingCommittee
> 
> Fully agree and I think that Bills notification to the list of the upcoming selection requirement was that open call for nominations from the NCUC community, to create the shortlist that the EC will then make its selection from. 
> That was my reading of his initial email at any rate and my response was to suggest I echoed AE's interest in having Bill run for this crucial position for NCUC given that his term as Chair was coming to an end. I don’t think anyone was suggesting an appointment by acclimation merely that a large volume of us were nominating Bills candidature for this role to be considered by the EC in line with the current charter process. 
> 
> 
> So I would suggest that the initial email from Bill was exactly that open call for candidates who fulfil the selection criteria set out in the bylaws for NomCom appointees and that it was a process open to everyone who is on this list and was thus notified. 
> 
> 
> 
> -James 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 5 Aug 2015, at 19:49, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques < jjs at dyalog.net > wrote: 
> 
> James: you make the point that "selection" and "election" are two different things, which is indisputable. Indeed, the process as defined in the current Bylaws, requires that a short list of selected candidates has been prepared, and that the EC then "votes" to elect one person. Whatever you prefer to call the process, the basic questions remain those posted in my short comment to Bill (above): is there (or why isn't there) a constituency-wide call for candidates ? Who determines the selection criteria for the short list of candidates ? Who establishes the short list ? In direct response to your comment, I think that, EVEN UNDER THE EXISTING BYLAWS, the call for candidates and the process should be open to all registered constituency members, up to the establishment of the short list. 
>