[ispcp] RE: [Ispcp-private] GNSO Council elections

["tony holmes" <tonyarholmes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wolf-Ulrich

You?re correct pointing out the previous approach where a nominee was put
forward from each house, but that situation was a little different. There
wasn?t total support for Stephane, and for some Olga was a stronger
candidate, particularly from the NCPH perspective. This time it?s a little
different as few would argue that Jonathan wouldn?t fill the role of a
strong but neutral chair.

 

You are of course entitled to make the proposal, but as you pointed out
previously, early indications are that both the BC and the IPC will back
Jonathon in the vote.  That could place Thomas in a situation where he
effectively gets zero, or very few votes, which wouldn?t reflect
particularly well, particularly as most of us would agree he is a strong
candidate.

 

Tony 

 

From: ispcp-private-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ispcp-private-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 25 September 2012 07:20
To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx; ispcp-private@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Ispcp-private] GNSO Council elections

 

All,

 

I also agree with Tony's analysis with one exception.

First I think there's a misprint: support for Jonathan within the CSG may
come from the BC and IPC (not NCUC).

 

We're still discussing the nomination of chair candidates - not yet the
election itself nor the (potential) result of it. However I admit that in
this context we have to take the candidates' electibility into
consideration, too. If the NCPH couldn't get to a consensus with respect to
Jonathan or Thomas there's nothing preventing the house to nominate a
candidate because the members are convinced she/he could run the council
best - and to split the votes during elections. Nominating a candidate
different from the CPH in my eyes is merely a democratic approach.

What then happens in the election is just a procedural question which is
described in the rules.

 

The houses did exactly the same 2 years ago: Stéphane was the CPH candidate,
Olga Cavalli the NCPH one - and the NCPH didn't vote unanimously for Olga.

According to the rules a second voting round followod with just Stéphane as
candidate and the "none of the above" option. Olga was out of this round
because she collected less votes in the 1st round than Stéphane.

 

I'm in favour to this approach and would also like to bring it to the CSG
table before the NCPH later today.

 

If that is accepted we have to be very open to Thomas. He could then decide
whether to accept the nomination.

Best regards 
Wolf-Ulrich 

 


  _____  


Von: ispcp-private-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ispcp-private-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Mike
O'Connor
Gesendet: Montag, 24. September 2012 21:32
An: ispcp-private@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [Ispcp-private] GNSO Council elections

i've worked with Jeff on a lot of working groups and would agree.  Jeff's a
great guy, but when he goes down a track he finds it really difficult to
back himself out.  that makes him a really effective advocate, but i haven't
seen him as a coalition-builder.  so i would love an outcome that led to
either of the other two candidates. 

 

mikey

 

 

On Sep 24, 2012, at 2:09 PM, "Novoa, Osvaldo" <onovoa@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





Dear Tony,

I agree with your analysis.

I think both Jonathan and Thomas are good candidates but from my, not overly
extensive, relation with them I would prefer Jonathan, I think he can be a
better Chairman.  But from the different conversations it seems clear that
Jonathan won?t accept the nomination unless Jeff Neuman withdrews his, which
doesn?t seem to be the case for now.  My impression of Jeff, mainly though
my participation in the IOC/RC DT, is that he tends to try to impose his
personal opinion and to be too accommodating to the Council?s decisions or
instructions.

I as said, my interaction with the other GNSO Council members hasn?t been
very extensive so I might be mistaken with my judgment.

Best regards,

Osvaldo

 


  _____  


De:  <mailto:ispcp-private-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
ispcp-private-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ispcp-
<mailto:private-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
private-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] En nombre de tony holmes
Enviado el: Lunes, 24 de Septiembre de 2012 15:41
Para:  <mailto:ispcp-private@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
ispcp-private@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [Ispcp-private] GNSO Council elections

 

All

We are very close to the closing date for nominations for the positions of
chair and vice-chair for the GNSO Council (26th September). That doesn?t
leave us much time to act, yet we still don?t have a final view of the
candidates. It appears that the contracted parties house will nominate
either Jeff Neuman or Jonathan Robinson for Chair. Thomas Rickert a nom-com
appointee to the council but also a member of the ISPCP is also likely to
stand. We need to make a choice of who to support.

 

Taking account of the need for the chair to be neutral on all issues, I
would like to propose if the choice is between Jeff and Thomas the ISPs
offer support for Thomas.

 

If the choice is between Jonathan and Thomas it is a tougher call as both
have shown they have the required qualities to be neutral and do a good job.
My personal view is to offer support for the candidate that appears most
electable in that case. Assuming the contracted parties house back their
nominee (Jonathan) and any other Constituency within the CSG backs him (it
currently appears both the NCUC and the BC may), Thomas cannot win. If that
situation occurs there appears little point in offering support for a
candidate who cannot win. Particularly as both appear to be good candidates.

 

For the vice chair position currently there is only one candidate, Joy
Heddicoat, which makes that an easy decision.

 

I would welcome your views and advice as discussion of this issue is being
channelled through the CSG. It would be particularly helpful if our council
representatives, Wolf and Osvaldo could also express their opinions as
they?ve worked alongside all potential candidates.

 

Please respond with your advice and thoughts to this list. Time is very
tight.

 

Regards

 

Tony

 


  _____  


El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido
únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser
confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al
remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el
e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está
prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por
cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del
mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier
comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de
Seguridad de la Información


This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for
the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender
immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached
files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity
that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not
responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information
Security Policy.
_______________________________________________
Ispcp-private mailing list
 <mailto:Ispcp-private@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Ispcp-private@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 <http://server.haven2.com/mailman/listinfo/ispcp-private>
http://server.haven2.com/mailman/listinfo/ispcp-private

 

- - - - - - - - -

phone  651-647-6109  

fax   866-280-2356  

web  http://www.haven2.com

handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)