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<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
