[NCUC-DISCUSS] Candidate statement

Mon Oct 1 21:21:18 CEST 2018

Dear Elsa, All

Thank you for your email, and I absolutely agree that the Constituencies
have been collaborating and building a strong non-commercial group.  As
Chair, it was one of my primary goal to work on building NPOC internal
organization and external collaborations.

The NPOC EC is totally committed to improving relations and collaborating
in a constructive way with NCUC, which as you mentioned the healthy
discussions and decisions made in the spirit of cooperation.   Renata and I
definitely discussed our plans and worked out how we can best represent
NCSG together, and I believe that this will continue.

As a note: I thought Tapani was addressing David Cake's statement:   'And I
think we have a good chance to change the relationship between NCUC and
NPOC to one that is more cooperative and complementary than it has
historically been, and I am committed to working towards' and not the
relationship between NCUC and NPOC as a whole..

The statement also surprised me, since NPOC EC is focussed on organizing
itself and collaborating with NCUC to build a strong Stakeholder Group.  I
believe we are making headway.

Thank you Elsa for your email, and let's continue to collaborate as we have
done for the past few years.
Regards,

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:33 PM Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Though I am all with open elections, wish david luck and respect the
> engagement in elections, I must say that I am appalled by the repeated
> mentioning of ‘the need for repairing relationships between NCUC and NPOC’
> while in the past year, being in the NCUC EC, I only saw very constructive
> and encouraging exchanges as well as engagement between both
> constituencies. One very recent and small incident lead to fiery
> discussion, however nothing that we could not solve amongst each other,
> nothing that we did not ‘repair’. Accordingly, I need to put this on the
> record.
>
> I hereby note my surprise that noone mentioned the last year of good
> practices, ignoring good relationships between ECs and members alike. These
> emails have only been fostering an idea of ongoing unhealthy ties, while I
> only saw constructive dialogues and exchanges in our factual recent
> history. I am happy Tapani suggested a liaison, yes why not, but only to
> build on the foundations that we created together in the past year - not to
> recreate the wheel.
>
> I would be happy to mention more concrete examples if need be, and if I’m
> being delusional, please correct me. Joane and Renata had a great amount of
> discussions for instance and collaborated over and over again throughout
> the year. Martin, Raul, Tapani, Ganghadar and Juan we had excellent
> exchanges about our joint cause for improvement of our constituencies and
> building capacities as two EC and even about how to solve issues that will
> always arise, together! So I would be happy to hear from you, if all that i
> witnessed in the past year was only an illusion of a healthy development.
> As far as my very short but very recent experience, I saw a very promising
> and positive dynamic. Thus, forgive me, but I cannot keep silent and have
> the record show that we are not on good terms. It wouldn’t be fair to any
> of us who worked very collaboratively in the past year (many of us).
>
> Thanks for your attention!
>
> Elsa
> —
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:10 PM Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> You are making an interesting, I dare say bold attempt to change
>> the relationship between our constituencies.
>>
>> Theoretically it's just fine: NCSG Charter explicitly allows
>> overlapping membership and as I read it, the specific intent is that
>> constituencies should be based on different issues, interests or
>> viewpoints, not different people fighting about same issues.
>>
>> So it would make perfect sense for some people to work on two (or
>> more) constituencies, and indeed we've long had organizations that
>> belong to both NCUC and NPOC as well as individuals who are
>> organizational representatives in NPOC and individual members in NCUC.
>>
>> But most people have been primarily active in one or the other, and in
>> practice NCUC and NPOC have more often been competing than cooperating
>> in the past. Certainly there's never before been even an attempt to
>> have their leaderships overlap like this.
>>
>> I don't know how it'd work out in practice. Perhaps it would help
>> cooperation and lessen the competitive and even antagonistic
>> relationships that our constituencies have historically had.
>>
>> Or perhaps those feelings will would overcome and make people on one
>> side or both treat you as a spy and things will fall apart.
>>
>> But I don't see anything inappropriate in the attempt.
>>
>> I am worried about the workload, though: it would be more than the sum
>> of two EC positions, you'd be in effect a liaison between the two ECs,
>> too.
>>
>> In fact it might make sense to have such a liaison position anyway, as
>> a separate job. Something to consider if you don't make it.
>>
>> But if you could really make it work, it could lead to a historic change
>> in NCSG's intra-constituency relations. Sounds like worth trying to me.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 01:37:09AM +0800, David Cake (dave at davecake.net)
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I do not feel the two positions intrinsically conflict - the two
>> constituencies should complement each other, I represent one of several
>> organisations that have cross-membership, I think the NCSG would be more
>> functional if more organisations had cross membership to address different
>> aspects of their activities. I do not know if it will work - no one has
>> tried before - but I do not know that it won’t. I intend to be scrupulous
>> about conflicts of interest, and resign as appropriate if they become
>> problematic, or if time commitments become too much (though noting we often
>> have members of the EC with other significant time commitments within
>> ICANN), but I personally do not anticipate that the conflicts will be
>> unsurmountable. I will also resign from one position if asked to by either
>> EC.
>> >
>> > I ran for the position of Policy Committee chair, NPOC is structured
>> differently to NCUC, the Policy Committee chair is automatically part of
>> their EC (I’m surprised as NCSG Chair that you are unfamiliar with the
>> structure of one of its constituencies). I ran with the intention of
>> focussing on policy issues, but there are obviously other EC decisions that
>> need to be made. NPOC does not have the same regional structure as NCUC,
>> and as I said to intend to work on regional strategy.
>> >
>> > I certainly accept that some people may feel that this is not an
>> appropriate way to work towards greater coordination between the
>> constituencies - if you find the idea very problematic, then it would be
>> appropriate to vote against me.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > David
>> >
>> >
>> > > On 21 Sep 2018, at 6:21 am, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Thank you
>> > >
>> > > I would like to ask you here how are you going to change the
>> relationship of npoc and ncuc when you ran for NPOC election, Winning a
>> contested seat ( I thought it was NPOC EC, is it EC or PC or both?) and
>> then decided to come back and run for an NCUC position? When you moved
>> there we thought you want to help build NPOC.
>> > >
>> > >  I don't see any indication that you will be resigning from NPOC
>> position if you get elected. Will you not resign?  Are you planning to hold
>> both positions?
>> > >
>> > > even if you resign from NPOC I think you running for NCUC EC after
>> having won in npoc election was not fair.   NCUC and NPOC have been trying
>> to work together and I sincerely don't think the way to enhance their
>> relationship is the way you have chosen.
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:30 PM David Cake <dave at davecake.net
>> <mailto:dave at davecake.net>> wrote:
>> > >         I accepted the nomination for NCUC EC Asia Pacific
>> representative for three reasons.
>> > > I have long experience with ICANN, particularly with its policy
>> processes, but also with its community leaders etc. There is a lot of
>> history and it is a very complex institution that takes years to fully
>> understand. I think the EC having at least once member with significant
>> experience with ICANN policy processes (such as how GNSO council operates,
>> the policy development process, historical interactions with other parts of
>> ICANN such as the ALAC or GAC) is very valuable.
>> > >
>> > >         I intend to work on Asia Pacific regional coordination and
>> outreach issues in the next year, beginning with attendance at the
>> OpenTechFund Summit in Taipei shortly after the ICANN Barcelona meeting. I
>> intend to do this anyway, and of course it will involve talking to many
>> NCUC (and NCSG) colleagues in any event, but I feel it will be
>> significantly better if we are able to link it outreach efforts through
>> those networks to NCUC regional outreach efforts.
>> > >
>> > >         And I think we have a good chance to change the relationship
>> between NCUC and NPOC to one that is more cooperative and complementary
>> than it has historically been, and I am committed to working towards that.
>> > >
>> > >         I hope my ICANN record is known to many by now - NCSG GNSO
>> Councillor for 4 years, 2 as Vice-Chair, a lot of working group experience
>> including the Next-generation RDS working group Vice-chair, etc. I have
>> previously served on the NCUC Executive Committee, and for a short time as
>> acting Chair of NCUC, in 2012. I am currently the chair of the NPOC Policy
>> Committee, and as such a member of the NCSG Policy committee.
>> > >
>> > >         David
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> > > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> > > https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss <
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss>
>> > > --
>> > > Farzaneh
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
> --
> --
>
> Elsa Saade
> Consultant
> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>

-- 

Joan Kerr,

Entrepreneur, Artist, Humanitarian

T: +1 (416) 907-0783

Skype: joankerr_fbsc

fbsc.org, www.fbsc.eco

Chair: Victory Garden Leadership Implementation Team

Chair, Sustainable Agriculture, Global Humanitarian Technology Conference

Chair: IEEE Smart Villages Project, Sustainable Agriculture Working Group

Chair: ICANN Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency

Recipient of the United Nations Civil Society Award (WSIS 2004)

Recipient, Region of Durham Community Partnership Award

Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee

Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Global
Coordination Unit
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20181001/00d6959b/attachment.html>