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

[KASWESHA]

1+ to James

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 11:15 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

> 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.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>



-- 
*Cell-Phone +254 722 212171 or +254 721 274273*

Before printing this mail make sure it is completely necessary. THE
ENVIRONMENT IS EVERY ONE'S BUSINESS.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20150805/14e038c1/attachment-0002.html>