[NCUC-DISCUSS] David and his many positions at NCUC/NCSG/NPOC

[Ayden Férdeline]

Hi David,

In this email you seem to deflect from answering my questions by trying to turn them back on me. With respect, I did not run for office — you did!

So let’s put the facts on the table. You were nominated by an NCUC member who is not active in our policy work. Did you request this nomination? I ask because I understand you were nominated for the NPOC PC role only after you asked many different NPOC members off-list to nominate you.

You go on in your email to conflate ICANN-related activities, like being a part of a working group and serving in a constituency leadership role, as being the same as serving two different constituencies with different priorities and interests. This is a false equivalency. We have different constituencies within the NCSG because they are different (though there might be overlap at times), as is the case within the Commercial Stakeholders Group for example. The Intellectual Property Constituency might have common interests with the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency at times, but they are ultimately not one and the same.

You then state that there is “one constituency [I] do not like”, which is a claim I reject, and I hope this false claim is not something that you have taken back to NPOC. You spoke in your campaign about building bridges between the NCUC and NPOC; if you have been setting fires instead, creating the impression that there is some kind of tension beneath the surface that only you can resolve, that would be disappointing to learn.

I agree that some people are capable of serving in multiple leadership roles. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this provided they can do them all justice. You cite Farzaneh being both a full EPDP delegate and NCSG Chair. She has a near-perfect attendance rate on the EPDP, and is active on the mailing list. She is also active as NCSG Chair. So for some people the answer is definitely ‘yes’ that they can faithfully serve multiple demanding roles. Sheryl Sandberg managed to write a book while serving as COO of Facebook; Jack Dorsey is CEO of both Twitter and Square. But the incentives at ICANN are different, and you have already acknowledged that the amount of time you can devote to ICANN activities is not unlimited.

Given this, do you have the time to devote to the NCUC and all of your other leadership roles?

Best wishes,

Ayden

> On 10 Oct 2018, at 07:39, David Cake <dave at davecake.net> wrote:
>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=utf-8
>
>> On 10 Oct 2018, at 6:59 am, Ayden F=C3=A9rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> =
>
> wrote:
>
>> =20
>> Thank you for highlighting this, Farzaneh.
>> =20
>> 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.
>
> I appreciate you enjoy the opportunity for gratuitous personal =
> abuse, but I do not.
>
>> 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.
>
> How did two become four? I now hold two elected positions. Their =
> terms do not overlap.
> Neither of them guarantees travel resources. Also, some of those =
> travel resources are shared between the two constituencies.
> 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.
> I do hope that some resources will be freed up for other EC =
> members and others.
>
>> I think this is a most reasonable request.
>
> You have a lot of opinions I disagree with, this is only one of =
> them.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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).
> 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=E2=80=99m glad it continues to support some of other, very =
> policy active members).
>
> 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
>
>> This would be a fifth leadership position for David =E2=80=94 in =
>
> addition to being an NCSG alternate to the EPDP. David has only been on =
> one of the 17 EPDP calls so far,
>
> 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.
>
> Regards
>
> David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20181010/a6421bc1/attachment.html>