Hi,
I tend to disagree with the notion that only the head up counts.
I tend to think that people's life experiences are signifiant and that those experiences bring different necessary perspectives. Hence the need for all sorts of diversity including at least gender and geographic. I would tend to include straight versus queer, but I know the world is not quite ready for that one yet.
As for logic, binary logic, a simplification necessary for old time machinery, is what leads one into illogical arguments. Multivalued logic is much better for dealing with the complexities of the world.
cheers
avri
On 31 Jan 2013, at 08:57, Alex Gakuru wrote:
> Regards this, I deliberately chose to make up my mind on and deal with *all* persons from the neck upwards. Pleased that it saved me a reasonable number of illogical arguments.
>
> --sent from a handheld-- excuse brevity and any typos--
>
> On Jan 31, 2013 7:24 PM, "Carl Smith" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks David,
>
> I have no problem with the geographic point, but If our best choice is a woman then what is the problem? To me, the one of whom we have the greatest confidence is who will serve our joint interests best. I look to the minds and hearts of those I support. There are still bigots in the world and surely that will continue to need addressing. Though often hidden from view. If the females of the world are to be our leaders because they have the right stuff, we are better for that. Are men afraid of loosing their machismo?
>
> Sorry for the rant, but I see this gender thing as demeaning to those who have worked to get to the position which they have rightfully earned.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lou
>
> On 1/30/2013 12:37 PM, David Cake wrote:
>> FWIW, only one GNSO endorsed candidate was required to meet gender diversity requirements, and both applicants from NCSG were women, so NCSG was inevitably going to meet the gender diversity requirements for the council, and so gender diversity was not at issue for this selection. One applicant from the Registries was a woman, but they did not choose to advance them as a candidate for endorsements.
>>
>> The diversity requirement that is relevant to the council endorsement decision was geographical diversity - we have ended up with four GNSO endorsed candidates from North America. There was an option for the council to endorse two extra candidates to satisfy geographical diversity requirements, one each from NCSG (Marie-Laure) and CSG, but the contracted parties did not vote for it.
>>
>> Regards
>> David
>>
>> On 30/01/2013, at 8:38 AM, Carl Smith <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Bill,
>>>
>>> Is this a solution looking for a problem or is there a problem of which I am unaware. Seems to me, we have tried to get the representation with confidence in mind. I know we talked about diversity with agreement. But if our best representation is not of the right sex......? I for one just want our consensus to be aggressively pursued by whom ever we feel most confident. I never got the impression any of us was a bigot. We have a liberty minded group, I believe.
>>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>>> On 1/29/2013 9:51 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>>> Hi Alain
>>>>
>>>> The process agreed agreed June 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/other/aoc-reviews is that
>>>>
>>>> "If the list does not meet the above mentioned diversity objectives, the Council as a whole may choose to endorse up to two additional candidates from the applicant pool who would help to give the list of GNSO nominees the desired balance. In this case, the Council would hold a vote during its teleconference, with sixty percent support of both houses represented in the Council being required for endorsement. If no candidate obtains that level of support, the list of endorsements obtained via the bottom-up process of stakeholder group nominations will be deemed final and forwarded to ICANN."
>>>>
>>>> So the additional nominees would be of the GNSO generally, not of the houses or SGs. The CPH stance was thus technically fine, just ill-considered.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 28, 2013, at 10:34 PM, Alain Berranger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Robin,
>>>>>
>>>>> Did not know it was an option for contracting parties to block non-contracted parties additional candidates. Is that the right interpretation? Did they also blocked additional candidates that would have added gender diversity?
>>>>>
>>>>> Alain
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, January 28, 2013, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>> I am told that the contracting parties blocked all additional candidates that would have added some geo diversity to the group. That part is disappointing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Date: January 27, 2013 12:49:41 PM PST
>>>>>> To: "Steve Crocker" <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Cc: <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>, "tony holmes" <[log in to unmask]>, "William Drake" <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>, "'KEITH DRAZEK'" <[log in to unmask]>, "Matt Serlin" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Subject: GNSO applicants to the ATRT2 team
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Steve, Dear Heather,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please see attached letter regarding appointment of applicants arising from within the GNSO to the ATRT2 team.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank-you for giving this matter your attention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jonathan Robinson
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chair
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ICANN GNSO Council
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> skype: jonathan.m.r
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>>>>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
>>>>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
>>>>> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
>>>>> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
>>>>> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>>>>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>>>>> Skype: alain.berranger
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
>>>>> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coopération.
>>>>>
>>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
>>>>> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
