[NCUC-EC] announcing ICANN63 travel slot?

Wed Aug 29 19:12:23 CEST 2018

Thanks.
So no CROP CALL for ICANN63 and no EC votes on CROP means no CROP
ALLOCATION FOR any candidate for ICANN63.
Next leadership will have two CROPs for ICANN64 and ICANN65, in addition to
a CROP for an ICANN-related event like GDD etc.

Again, nothing changes the facts.

I kindly and respectfully also ask you to correct the public announcement
you made.

Le mercredi 29 août 2018, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com> a
écrit :
> Calls can not be made with less than 14 business days - Operating
Procedures
> Also already asked and answered
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:53 PM, hfaiedh ines <hfaiedh.ines2 at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> 1. Shahul had majority for the first NCUC Fellowship Slot
>> 2. Dina had only one vote on the second NCUC slot,
>> 3. We had only two ECs thinking out loud, not really voting and
oscilliating
>> between Ben and Dina for the second NCUC Slot
>> 4. We do not have any abstain from any EC on the record.
>> 5. We did not have an ICANN63 CROP Call separate from NCUC Fellowship
so, no
>> call, no applicants, no slot to allocate and more importantly not a
single
>> EC vote on CROP ICANN63.So no CROP ALLOCATION FROM NCUC FOR ICANN63
>> 6. In addition to a procedural issue that myself and Bruna raised
concerning
>> the abscence of a call for CROP as other constituencies did, I was happy
to
>> learn from Mariam and Tapani that NPOC also has its 3 ICANN or ICANN
related
>> events CROP.
>> 7.Deadline to send a name is August 31st we are August 29th.
>> 8. The announcement made on ncuc and ncsg members mailing list wont
change
>> anything to the facts listed above.
>> 9. The public announcement on the travel smot allocations is erronous and
>> does not reflect EV decisions.
>>
>>
>> Le mercredi 29 août 2018, Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>
a
>> écrit :
>>> Hey all,
>>> The reason why the EC is a collegiate group is so that we make decisions
>>> collectively and provided the input from our peers. Whenever we approach
>>> debates assuming external factors such as "backchannel lobbying" we are
not
>>> only demeaning the group but also our peers capability of making a
decision
>>> on their own, and this should never be the case.
>>>
>>> Since the beginning we have approached debates and tallys in a very
>>> respectful manner and also observing our bylaws. If in some cases our EC
>>> members did not get the chance to respond to an vote or weigh in a
subject,
>>> consensus calls for the majority's will - if we had followed that MO
Dina
>>> should have had the funding instead of the CROP given that Michael had
voted
>>> for her. What bothers me about this specific situation, other than the
>>> personal attacks - a question suffered by some or all of us previously
and
>>> that we tried to address as a collegiate -, is that we gave a CROP
without a
>>> call or even a mention of an allocation possibility that was initially
>>> directed to NCUC without going evaluating any CROP outreach plans from
the
>>> selected member. Had we announced that and I am pretty sure of other
members
>>> that could have possibly applied for this specific slot - as I
highlighted
>>> in previous emails.
>>>
>>> As to the CROP slot deadline, there was never a clear understanding on
>>> whether or not filling slot today or lets say in november would imply on
>>> NCUC losing it. What would be lost if there wasnt any announcements
today
>>> was the opportunity of using this crop slot for the barcelona meeting,
and
>>> not the slot per se.
>>> I really wish we had more conversations about this specific issue
instead
>>> of arriving at this situation we find ourselves at rn.
>>> Em qua, 29 de ago de 2018 às 13:40, Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com>
>>> escreveu:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Renata,
>>>> I have all the right to abstain when I sense that I would be making a
>>>> decision without a proper base. I did not abstain this time though, I
rather
>>>> waited, keepig an eye out for any deliberations that could affect how
to
>>>> weigh in NPOC Chair’s recommendation for instance. I understand there
was a
>>>> deadline, but I will never make a decision when I’m not entirely sure
based
>>>> on what I would be making it. And I have the right as well as the
>>>> responsibility to do so.
>>>> As for conflict of interest, I still haven’t taken up the role of GNSO
>>>> Councilor, as mentioned several times, I am still acting as NCUC EC AP
until
>>>> Barcelona. This was made clear in so many different exchanges both
formally
>>>> and informally. Just FYI, I haven’t even been added to the GNSO Council
>>>> mailing list as a councelor nor have I had handover, the only exchange
that
>>>> was made relating to this position was mitigating my presence in
Barcelona
>>>> for the start of my Councilor role. To have to justify this to you, is
quite
>>>> surprising to me.
>>>> In any case, this thread is aimed to speak about a specific issue, and
>>>> tackling the fact that on the list, it will seem like the EC actually
made a
>>>> final clear cut decision about the allocations, when we actually did
not
>>>> entirely do that. Let us refrain from opening side discussions that I
would
>>>> tackle on a different thread.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Elsa
>>>> —
>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:28 PM Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>> <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Elsa,
>>>>>
>>>>> You abstained on your 2nd vote and the deadline passed.
>>>>> In fact, you always abstain on difficult decisions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now, you are also omitting the conflict of interest of being EC
>>>>> AP and GNSO Councillor, which I have asked you time and time again
>>>>> privately to address on the main NCUC list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please do it so
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > Im honestly out of words as to the way this has unfolded. To start
>>>>> > with the
>>>>> > exchange between Farzi and Renata where it was implied that we were
>>>>> > being
>>>>> > manipulated into making a decision, to eventually making a choice
for
>>>>> > the EC
>>>>> > due to the deadline. I do understand that there was a deadline and
>>>>> > staff
>>>>> > would be out for a longer time than we can afford, however, I
>>>>> > personally saw
>>>>> > a lot of potential in other candidates that I would have voted for,
if
>>>>> > there
>>>>> > wasn’t so much confusion on how to weigh in, with the different
>>>>> > lobbying
>>>>> > from all sides. I’m not sure as to what kind of standard we will be
>>>>> > handing
>>>>> > over to the next EC. And it would be risky to just handover the way
we
>>>>> > dealt
>>>>> > with these allocations as is.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Since the news is out, there isn’t much that can be done. But for
the
>>>>> > record, I believe there should be more trust in the EC’s capability
of
>>>>> > making a decision on their own without fear of interferance or
>>>>> > ‘manipulation’, and there should be more of a comprehensive strategy
>>>>> > when it
>>>>> > comes to choosing candidates. Where are the newcomers in this batch
of
>>>>> > chosen candidates for instance? What’s the outcome of having them at
>>>>> > ICANN63
>>>>> > for us all? Is it serving the aim of policy development or not? Of
>>>>> > outreach?
>>>>> > Of welcoming new faces? Of proper funding allocation?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > My two cents here.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > E.
>>>>> > —
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:49 AM Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>>> > <raquino at gmail.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Dear EC
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I am sorry but you missed the deadline for announcement for 2 days
>>>>> >> already.
>>>>> >> And yes, I did mention that we would very likely lose CROP ICANN63
>>>>> >> date if we don't use, as the recent reminder of Ozan implies.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> We are already losing 9000USD on website management funding because
>>>>> >> the EC did not come up with any contribution on this.
>>>>> >> We discovered we had this funding in August and it is very likely
the
>>>>> >> new Chair may not be able to tap into it.
>>>>> >> I haven't been able to address small suggestions to it.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> So we need to be more fiscally responsible to NCUC as well as
>>>>> >> respecting our Operating Procedures.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> There is no time for  a call for ICANN63, we were questioned 2 days
>>>>> >> ago, our staff is out until 10Sept.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I understand the pressure on you but squandering funding is the
worst
>>>>> >> you can do.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Best,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Renata
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:35 PM, Michael Karanicolas
>>>>> >> <mkaranicolas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> > I also don't understand this course of action. As I understand
it,
>>>>> >> > we
>>>>> >> > were
>>>>> >> > deliberating the travel slots - and all that remained was to
decide
>>>>> >> > between
>>>>> >> > Ben or Dina. Nobody has suggested allocating the CROP and, as
Bruna
>>>>> >> > says, we
>>>>> >> > haven't done a proper call.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > I would suggest the Chair hold back on this, and we ask the EC
>>>>> >> > folks who
>>>>> >> > voted for Ben OR Dina to just pick one or the other, with a
>>>>> >> > deadline of
>>>>> >> > COB
>>>>> >> > today.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:29 PM Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>>> >> > <raquino at gmail.com>
>>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> Dear Bruna
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> Unfortunately I have time and time again given the EC the
>>>>> >> >> opportunity
>>>>> >> >> to participate on the CROP Outreach Plan, on the deadline to
>>>>> >> >> ICANN63
>>>>> >> >> and on the weighing in on solutions.
>>>>> >> >> I'm sorry you oppose now but we are out of options
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> Best,
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> Renata
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Bruna Martins dos Santos
>>>>> >> >> <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >> > We did not open a call for this one and it will raise
questions
>>>>> >> >> > in
>>>>> >> >> > our
>>>>> >> >> > membership as to why we gave it to Dina once this was never
>>>>> >> >> > announced
>>>>> >> >> > to
>>>>> >> >> > the
>>>>> >> >> > larger list. And also, I dont believe that there is such thing
>>>>> >> >> > as an
>>>>> >> >> > interpretation that if we dont use this crop NOW we are to
lose,
>>>>> >> >> > given
>>>>> >> >> > that
>>>>> >> >> > the three slots shall be used until the end of FY19.
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > Em qua, 29 de ago de 2018 às 12:18, Bruna Martins dos Santos
>>>>> >> >> > <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> escreveu:
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> Dear Renata,
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> I am sorry but I oppose this idea. We were not discussing
CROP,
>>>>> >> >> >> we
>>>>> >> >> >> were
>>>>> >> >> >> discussing travel support.
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> Em qua, 29 de ago de 2018 às 12:17, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>>> >> >> >> <raquino at gmail.com> escreveu:
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> Dear all
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> We should have announced this on the 27aug
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> We also have the CROP ICANN63 slot to an EU NCUC member
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> We just received a reminder today to use it, at the risk of
>>>>> >> >> >>> losing
>>>>> >> >> >>> it
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> I have read all the emails and I'll do the following
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> Travel Support - 1st slot
>>>>> >> >> >>> Shahul Hameed
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> Travel Support - 2nd slot
>>>>> >> >> >>> Benjamin Akinmoyeje
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> CROP ICANN63
>>>>> >> >> >>> I'll work with Dina Thomas on a NCUC CROP outreach plan and
>>>>> >> >> >>> send it
>>>>> >> >> >>> to
>>>>> >> >> >>> the EC and to the CROP staff.
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> Best,
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> Renata
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Bruna Martins dos Santos
>>>>> >> >> >>> <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >> >>> > Dear All,
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> > I believe that according the advice provided by Farzi we
>>>>> >> >> >>> > still
>>>>> >> >> >>> > have
>>>>> >> >> >>> > this
>>>>> >> >> >>> > year to decide whether or not we are using this support
>>>>> >> >> >>> > exclusively
>>>>> >> >> >>> > to
>>>>> >> >> >>> > NCUC
>>>>> >> >> >>> > members or if we are opening the selection to NPOC and
NCSG
>>>>> >> >> >>> > as
>>>>> >> >> >>> > well
>>>>> >> >> >>> > -
>>>>> >> >> >>> > as we
>>>>> >> >> >>> > did in this one - but as this selection is still subjected
>>>>> >> >> >>> > to
>>>>> >> >> >>> > NCUC
>>>>> >> >> >>> > EC I
>>>>> >> >> >>> > believe that we should continue to perform by selecting
the
>>>>> >> >> >>> > funded
>>>>> >> >> >>> > members
>>>>> >> >> >>> > based on the quality of their outreach plans and
application
>>>>> >> >> >>> > independently
>>>>> >> >> >>> > of the approach we seek to follow - opening calls or using
>>>>> >> >> >>> > them
>>>>> >> >> >>> > for
>>>>> >> >> >>> > NCUC
>>>>> >> >> >>> > only.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> > In that sense, I am also between Dina and Ben.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> > Dina provided a good application and is also supported by
>>>>> >> >> >>> > NPOC
>>>>> >> >> >>> > Leadership,
>>>>> >> >> >>> > but I agree with Louise on the "her application might have
>>>>> >> >> >>> > benefitted
>>>>> >> >> >>> > from a
>>>>> >> >> >>> > more concrete outline of how she has been working within
>>>>> >> >> >>> > PDPs -
>>>>> >> >> >>> > or
>>>>> >> >> >>> > tying PDP
>>>>> >> >> >>> > experience as an observer with her policy writing". I very
>>>>> >> >> >>> > much
>>>>> >> >> >>> > appreciate
>>>>> >> >> >>> > Dina's efforts regarding the Policy writing ad-hoc group
she
>>>>> >> >> >>> > tried
>>>>> >> >> >>> > to
>>>>> >> >> >>> > assemble, but I did not see it moving forward (and am not
>>>>> >> >> >>> > implying
>>>>> >> >> >>> > it
>>>>> >> >> >>> > is her
>>>>> >> >> >>> > fault either).
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> > On the other hand, we have Ben who we approved on a
previous
>>>>> >> >> >>> > call
>>>>> >> >> >>> > and
>>>>> >> >> >>> > due to
>>>>> >> >> >>> > personal reasons was not able to attend the meeting. Ben
is
>>>>> >> >> >>> > has
>>>>> >> >> >>> > been
>>>>> >> >> >>> > involved in the RDS and the RPMs working group and while
we
>>>>> >> >> >>> > thought
>>>>> >> >> >>> > that the
>>>>> >> >> >>> > Policy meeting would be a moment for him to make sense of
>>>>> >> >> >>> > what
>>>>> >> >> >>> > has
>>>>> >> >> >>> > been
>>>>> >> >> >>> > discussed in the calls, he was not able to attend. If I am
>>>>> >> >> >>> > not
>>>>> >> >> >>> > mistaken,
>>>>> >> >> >>> > when we chatted about his situation in PR, and the idea of
>>>>> >> >> >>> > re-considering
>>>>> >> >> >>> > him for the subsequent call was at the table.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> > Given that I am very on the fence about the selection of
the
>>>>> >> >> >>> > second
>>>>> >> >> >>> > candidate, and that the two candidates are from EU and
AF, I
>>>>> >> >> >>> > would
>>>>> >> >> >>> > be
>>>>> >> >> >>> > more
>>>>> >> >> >>> > than happy to follow the advice from our EU and AF
>>>>> >> >> >>> > representatives.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> > And please, lets decide soon on this matter, the more we
>>>>> >> >> >>> > delay
>>>>> >> >> >>> > the
>>>>> >> >> >>> > decision
>>>>> >> >> >>> > the harder it becomes to our funded members to find
tickets
>>>>> >> >> >>> > within
>>>>> >> >> >>> > the
>>>>> >> >> >>> > price
>>>>> >> >> >>> > range. Barcelona is in less than two months!
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> > best,
>>>>> >> >> >>> > B.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> > Em ter, 28 de ago de 2018 às 10:15, Louise Marie Hurel
>>>>> >> >> >>> > <louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com> escreveu:
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Dear all,
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> First, I'd like to kindly thank Joan for her inputs.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Second, I cast my first vote to Shahul. As my colleagues
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> have
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> already
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> highlighted, he has been actively engaging in policy
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> writing and
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> shows
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> promising development within our community -- he has
shown
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> consistent
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> commitment and dedication. His application was clear,
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> consistent
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> and
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> grounded. I think he would also benefit greatly from the
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> opportunity
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> to
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> participate on-site and hopefully lay deeper grounds for
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> further
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> engagement
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> within the NCUC.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Quite frankly, my second vote goes to either Benjamin or
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Dina.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Let
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> me
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> take
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> a few lines to explain why - given NPOC Chair's support
for
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Dina. I
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> have had
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> the opportunity to work with her in the past two meetings
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> at the
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> onboarding
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> program. She is committed and has engaged in drafting
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> comments -
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> a
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> strong
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> applicant. Although her application might have benefitted
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> from a
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> more
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> concrete outline of how she has been working within PDPs
-
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> or
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> tying
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> PDP
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> experience as an observer with her policy writing (a
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> general way
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> of
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> gaining
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> insights and perspectives from other stakeholder groups
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> and/or
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> maturity in
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> navigating ICANN). On the other hand, I also think that
we
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> need
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> to
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> give
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> space for new applicants, and that includes giving Ben an
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> opportunity,
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> as he
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> has, unfortunately, not been able to attend the last
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> meeting due
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> to
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> visa
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> issues. He also submitted a good application, clearly
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> demonstrating
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> consistency in participating and following two PDPs and
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> looking
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> for
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> mentorship. My only question here is that while he states
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> that
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> he
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> would do
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> his best to "keep along with the ICANN63 sessions
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> especially
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> those
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> that
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> concern the NCUC and NCSG" he didn't explain how the slot
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> would
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> also
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> play
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> into his volunteer work on NPOC's PC, in particular. I
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> think
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> that
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> this
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> might
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> have been an opportunity for him to provide a more robust
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> account
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> of a
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> grounded plan for engagement in this next meeting.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> As observed, I outlined both the pros and cons of their
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> applications.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> I
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> don't think there's a clear shot here and thus count on
my
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> peers
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> to
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> either
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> provide further insights to their decision that might aid
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> in the
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> allocation
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> of this slot or, rely on a majority of voters for one or
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> the
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> other.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Hope this provides a fair account of my decision.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Kind regards,
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Louise Marie Hurel
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Cybersecurity Project Coordinator | Igarapé Institute
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> London School of Economics (LSE) Media and Communications
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> (Data
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> and
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Society)
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> Skype: louise.dias
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> +44 (0) 7468 906327
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> l.h.dias at lse.ac.uk
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 at 18:43, Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> <raquino at gmail.com>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> Thank you Joan for your clarification.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Joan Kerr
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> <joankerr at fbsc.org>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> wrote:
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > Hi Renata, All
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > NPOC is supporting Dina for a number of reasons.  She
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > has
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > been
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > working
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > hard
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > with the newly formed PC and has a lot of experience
in
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > policy
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > and
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > processes.  NPOC feels Dina is the right choice and
will
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > be
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > instrumental in
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > assisting with the policy going forward.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > Thanks,
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:23 PM Renata Aquino Ribeiro
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > <raquino at gmail.com>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > wrote:
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Dear Joan
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Please see inquiry from one of the NCUC EC reps.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 1:47 PM, Bruna Martins dos
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> Santos
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > Dear all,
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > My first vote went to Shahul, and as I am still to
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > decide
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > who
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > will
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > get
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > the
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > second slot Im more prone to vote either o Ben or
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > Farell,
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > who
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > is
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > also a
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > NPOC
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > member I believe.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > Renata, do you think that would be the case for
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > asking
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > Joan
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > whether
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > or
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > not
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > she'd recommend a second name since Remmy withdrew
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > his
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > candidacy
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > ?
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > best,
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > B.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > Em dom, 26 de ago de 2018 às 21:59, Renata Aquino
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > Ribeiro
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > <raquino at gmail.com> escreveu:
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> Dear EC
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> It is time to announce the ICANN63 travel slots.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> Please decide soon.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> Thanks
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>
https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > --
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > Bruna Martins dos Santos
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >> > @boomartins
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > --
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> > 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
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>>> >> >> >>> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> >> >> >>> >> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> > --
>>>>> >> >> >>> > Bruna Martins dos Santos
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> > Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>>> >> >> >>> > @boomartins
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> --
>>>>> >> >> >> Bruna Martins dos Santos
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>>> >> >> >> @boomartins
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > --
>>>>> >> >> > Bruna Martins dos Santos
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>>> >> >> > @boomartins
>>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> >> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>>> >> >> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> >> >> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>>> >> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> >> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > --
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Elsa Saade
>>>>> > Consultant
>>>>> > Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>>>>> > Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Elsa Saade
>>>> Consultant
>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>>>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bruna Martins dos Santos
>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>> @boomartins
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20180829/98ea7770/attachment.html>