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

Thu Oct 11 19:56:20 CEST 2018

Hi there,

I think this is a discussion for the NCUC list, as it concerns the outcome of an NCUC election.

As for the comment you quoted below, the person who told me that is actually the person who formally nominated David to serve in that role. They felt pressured to make the nomination because no one else wanted to, and they said that they had been asked to do so. I am not going to name this person here, but with a little detective work, they could of course be identified. My email was factual.

Ayden

> On 11 Oct 2018, at 19:45, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> First of all, this should really be a discussion for the NCSG list. It's a matter for the whole stakeholder group as clearly as possible. That's why I'm catching up late on this.
>
> There's been good points that I can agree with and we have actually discussed this matter in the NPOC already before the election results and will decide on it in Barcelona. So everybody hold their horses until then, please.
>
> What did catch my eye, was a little tidbit I really didn't like:
>
> Ayden says to Dave:
>
>> I understand you were nominated for the NPOC PC role only after you asked many different NPOC members off-list to nominate you.
>
> Could you please elaborate, how did you reach this conclusion exactly? Both me and Joan asked Dave to join NPOC EC for the policy chair's position. Who actually nominates the candidates, is usually trivial. It seems like an obvious smearing attempt to me because it's a purposeful bending of the truth at best, a nasty lie at worst. Which is it Ayden? Whichever it is, I think you shouldn't be moralising people about "setting fires", with these sorts of hurtful speculations that have no truth in them.
>
> -Raoul
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 16:47, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Stephanie for your Frank disposition.
>>
>> Remmy
>>
>> On 11 Oct 2018 1:58 p.m., "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Everyone!
>>>
>>> I have been staying out of this discussion because as the incoming NCSG Chair, I sense that a torch may be thrown in my direction two weeks from now, and I will have to undertake some revision of our Charter.  As others have stated, there is no rule that prevents a person from running for both constituencies.  I believe there are such rules in other SGs, and I will do my homework over the next two weeks.
>>>
>>> As Dorothy has said so well, fractious (if frank) discussions on this list may not be helping us work together.  Perhaps we can try to focus on some positive steps moving forwards.  And if I may paraphrase what she said in her second last sentence...the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
>>>
>>> Personally, I do feel that we should have some kind of rule whereby a person represents one constituency at a time....which is not to say in the slightest that we cannot move back and forth, join both, or become just an NCSG member eschewing all identification of constituency.  The plain fact is that taking a leadership role in NCSG, wherever one does it, is demanding.  Our primary job here is policy development.....and as I have said many times, if you are not paying attention to policy, not following the development of documents and comments, you are not really helping us out in our primary work.  To all those who do....who volunteer to hold the pen, pester the other commenters to contribute on time, etc., many many thanks.  As leaders, we hate having to do this all the time.   To my way of thinking, all leaders should be following the PDP work and sharing that load, which is a serious time commitment.  We should not have to rely on a few workhorses to actually join the PDPs and do the fighting.  We are stretched to the limits folks.  If tempers seem a little frayed on this list at times, please be understanding.  Just ask me how many hours some of our people are putting in on our collective behalf....I try to keep track.
>>>
>>> So while I hope this discussion will all be resolved amicably by the time I take over from Farzi as NCSG Chair....and noting that she has been working absolutely tirelessly on our behalf, under difficult and trying circumstances....I would be happy to discuss whether a rule change is in order.  Thanks to those who have made this suggestion.
>>>
>>> At some point, preferably not in the middle of a rather heated discussion, I would like to bring up the topic of how we communicate on this list.  We have different cultural expectations, in my view.  For some of us, a frank discussion of facts can be construed as a personal attack.  As a North American, I tend to favor frankness, hopefully with a view to appreciating that people are volunteering their time and have feelings and interests wrapped up in this work.  Nevertheless, we need to be able to discuss what is happening, introduce facts, and not be worried about flattering everyone all the time.  If it will help, I will undertake to send out a "good job everyone!!!" note every month to remind us (and myself) that we are all trying our best.  However, please let us not take criticism personally.  We need to be direct with one another to be clear about our expectations and goals.
>>>
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>
>>> On 2018-10-10 02:54, dorothy g wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Friends,  These exchanges are not helping to build our community.  Also certain language and accusations have been made by some parties that are not helpful. Please stop and let us get on with the main tasks. If there are serious procedural concerns we should be clear on what exactly needs to be changed and why without personalising the situation. I believe our two communities work together and we should not squabble over travel support.This is petty. Let us appreciate that different members of the community contribute in different ways. Someone was elected. If the rules made them ineligible that should have been sorted out before the election. Let us move on.
>>>> Farzaneh, Thanks for objecting to those 'gender-biased' adjectives. Women should not be bullied into silence. As I have said earlier we will miss you. We may not always agree but I have always found you to be professional in your approach.
>>>>
>>>> David let me say that most of us are looking forward to you making stellar contributions during your term.  This remains the best way to silence detractors.
>>>>
>>>> best regards
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:37 AM David Cake <dave at davecake.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 10 Oct 2018, at 10:53 am, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The only certainty I have in the current case is that out of fairness, it should not be possible to pile up travel grants by virtue of holding multiple positions. Again, I do not know whether this has occurred or is occuring in our present case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what I understand here as "piling up" is not having several opportunities to obtain travel funds for one given meeting, but actually obtaining more than "one" allocation of travel funds through the multiple hats or getting travel funds more often than others just by virtue of holding several positions. I do not know what coordinating mechanisms there are between NCSG/NPOC/NCUC as far as travel grants are concerned, and whether there are rules as to "who pays" (or who should pay) for people with multiple hats, but that is also something that could and should be discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Travel funding is a complex issue, but I do not believe that acquiring multiple travel funding without re-allocation is likely to happen within our current SG system. There are some slight wrinkles here and there (such as using funds from one sources to top up travel support from another, as has happened for various reasons when ICANN funding does not cover a full meeting or meeting associated events), but I certainly do not anticipate that the amount of travel resources available overall will be in any way reduced.
>>>>> There are also, of course, funding for various special purpose roles within ICANN (such as WGs, mentoring, etc), but they each have separate rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>
>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20181011/ce37ab65/attachment.html>