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. > > > > > > >