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

Thu Oct 11 20:34:14 CEST 2018

It's you who brought NPOC's elections up and apparently in a smearing
attempt. I know it now feels awkward.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 21:32, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> The value in this mailing list exists only to the extent that it can
> sustain informed discussion on DNS policy issues and NCUC affairs. Please,
> let's try to keep that focus. The NPOC lists can be used to discuss NPOC
> elections.
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
> On 11 Oct 2018, at 20:24, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So let me get this clear, you asked those others as well, and they said
> they had also been pressurised into nominating Dave but were unwilling to
> do so?
>
> I seriously don't think that's true and I would've nominated him myself,
> hadn't I already nominated another. I think that could be seen as dictative
> behavior during the elections, from the less active members' viewpoint.
> Dave has been most welcome to NPOC EC to share his experience with policy
> that we have really struggled with for too long now. I remember asking him
> to join NPOC as early as Copenhagen.
>
> Whatever you might want to make it appear like, Dave did not have to plea
> for his nomination in the last NPOC elections. For the NCUC elections he
> made his dual position abundantly clear and the members voted for him
> despite it. It really has nothing to do with the nominator in my view.
> Instead of making speculative personal attacks against a newly elected
> officer, I advise you to stick to the facts and only them.
>
> -Raoul
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 20:56, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttps://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/20181011/2ff3fece/attachment.html>