[NCUC-EC] New Elections Timeline @ NCSG

[Louise Marie Hurel]

Hi Bruna,

Many thanks for sending a summary of our chat and for drawing our attention
to this.

With regards to the transition period, I would like to reecho the question
I asked during the call, as I think it is pertinent to our planning process
for the next couple of months: What would you like to have learned/heard
before running or taking on a leadership role in the EC? What are the key
issues that should have been addressed earlier? How can we work with the
4-months timeframe to tackle that?

I think the potential challenges for planning the policy forum needs to be
raised within the GNSO and it would be helpful to hear from other SGs (i)
whether this is a shared concern and (ii) how they are planning on tackling
these and other challenges. I understand that the travel timeline has been
set and that we need to abide by it, but we wouldn't want to be overloaded
with election process work whilst setting the agenda for the policy forum
-- this could be particularly burdensome for the Chairs and staff, but then
I am not in the place to say whether that would actually be the case or
not, just a perception.

Have a great weekend!

All the best,


*Louise Marie Hurel*

Research and Project Development Cybersecurity and Digital Liberties
Programme | Igarapé Institute

Publications
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Louise_Marie_Hurel/publications>
Skype: louise.dias
louise at igarape.org.br
louise.marie.hsd at gmail.com



On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 at 18:05, Antonella Perini <antomperini at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi all!
>
>
> Thanks for the note!
>
>
> As regards the concerns noted, certainly it would require more engagement
> to both maintain interest and plan and execute the transition at this new
> time frame. However, I believe that the transition period would, in fact,
> be helpful for newly elected leaderships to have a more solid preparation
> and support to take their respective mandates. Last but not least, it
> makes sense to the main issue here, the new travel deadlines. Nevertheless,
> I find it is key to know what other SGs and constituencies decide, as it
> would be inadvisable not to run elections at the same time.
>
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Antonella
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 12:20, Bruna Martins dos Santos <
> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear EC,
>>
>> The constituency and NCSG Chairs have been discussing the upcoming
>> elections for all three groups. Because ICANN is backing up travel
>> deadlines in order to cut costs, we now have to have our members names in
>> four months in advance. This will impact the timing of elections, in order
>> to have our new leaders seated at the AGM. We think it would be sensible
>> and labor saving to have all three elections run at the same time. Here is
>> the proposed schedule:
>>
>> May 13 - June 07: check in period 23 May - 06 June: Nomination period 07
>> June: deadline for nomination acceptance and candidate statement. Check in
>> ends. 09 June: Voter roll finalized 08/09 June: meet the candidates call 10
>> June - 23 June: Voting 24 June: Results
>>
>> Just to clarify, ICANN has adopted a new travel deadline prior to
>> meetings; from now on we will have to inform who is using the NCUC travel
>> slots 120 days before the meeting. That means that July 5th is the last
>> day in which we should inform who from the EC will be going to Montreal.
>>
>> Based on that, GNSO leadership wrote to all SG and Constituency leaders
>> for us to evaluate adjusting our elections timeline in order to allow newly
>> elected leaders to attend the AGM. GNSO leadership also clarified that the
>> travelers list not be amended due to newly elected officers and recommended
>> the elections adjustment.
>>
>> On the call we just had, I've taken notes on some of the concerns you
>> presented such as: 1. Transition period - while 4 months would allow us to
>> do proper transition and onboarding newly elected leadership team members,
>> how we would deal with it is key - from trying to avoid ppl from loosing
>> interest in their mandates to any other problems;
>> 2. Shifting attention from the policy forum - Having elections prior to
>> the PF does in fact takes a bit of the attention that should be going to
>> preparations.
>> 3. Consult with other SGs and constituencies - check if everyone will
>> adjust their timelines.
>>
>> Therefore my initial question is: Do we agree with it ? All questions
>> considered I think it would be good to (a) have unified elections and (b)
>> adjust our timelines to the new travel deadlines.
>>
>> But I would like to hear more from you, especially the ones who were not
>> able to join this very last minute call @David Cake <dave at davecake.net> and
>> @Antonella Perini <antomperini at gmail.com> . Also, If I forgot to list
>> any concerns, please let me know. best,
>> --
>> *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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20190421/f5f928e4/attachment.html>