Thanks Brett. I agree, and am considering it. We have a burnout issue that needs to be discussed. I do not mean me, I mean generally there is too much work being done by too few people. cheers Stephanie On 2016-08-03 11:29, Schaefer, Brett wrote: > > Niels, > > I disagree. The NCSG had various views on a number of issues in the > transition proposal. I actually though that the councilors did a > credible job of representing the diversity of views in the NCSG by > dividing their votes. > > On the issue of fresh blood, is this really a big problem? David Cake > is term limited. So that will be at least on new person. If Stephanie > is concerned about this issue, she could just decide not to run and > ensure that a new person will fill her slot. > > That said, I think there is value in continuity and experience in > dealing with issues before the GNSO. > > Best, > > Brett > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > BrettSchaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National > Security and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org <http://heritage.org/> > > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf > Of *Niels ten Oever > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 03, 2016 11:02 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: +1's and support > > I'd like to add that I think it would also be very good if we would > increase the accountability of our councillors and leadership team. > > I was for instance very surprised, and quite shocked frankly, when one > of our own councillors, as the only one on the GNSO, came out against > the inclusion of a commitment to human rights in ICANNs bylaws. > > I do not think this represented the opinion of the NCSG, or at least > such a decision was not agreed upon. > > NCSG has gained a lot of credibility, but it is also at risk of losing > it at times. Better accountability can help us to prevent that from > happening. > > Best, > > Niels > > On 08/03/2016 04:44 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Having served on council now for two years, I think we should consider > > better how we want to run these elections. DO people out there really > > understand the work we do on council? How do we want our council > > members to act? How do we want them to discuss issues on our monthly > > policy calls? How collaborative should the decision making be? How do > > we do succession planning and mentoring? These are issues that are > > fundamentally important in my view, and should be discussed during the > > campaign, not relegated to nominee's statements. > > > > I agree with Niels and Milton that if expressions of support are > > suppressing candidates from coming forward, we need a rule against it. > > We desperately need more people to run....there was only one contested > > seat the last time I ran, when gender balance and regional balance were > > taken into consideration. > > > > Best, > > > > Stephanie > > > > > > On 2016-08-03 10:24, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. wrote: > >> Dear Milton. > >> > >> I agree that this is a very fine procedural point, that should be > >> managed clearly by the people responsible for the process, from the > >> first mail on, so as to allow for others to consider participating. > >> Maybe it should even become a written rule of internal netiquette. > >> > >> But in the meantime, coming from a Hyperdemocratic and > >> Hyper-freedom-of-expression rights country like Costa Rica (and the > >> re-election being a possibility for some incumbents) I done´t see > >> anything wrong in feeling the temperature of the room early on as a > >> way to recognise how hard some of them have worked in the past. We > >> might have chosen the wrong place to make this type of comments, but > >> space should be available for making them in the list anyhow. Maybe > >> just under a different heading, like “I don´t like the re-election of > >> incumbents” for example. > >> > >> Now, do we have an explicit rule as suggested by Niels and you? How > >> and where do we express our support for that rule? Should we draw a > >> redline and asked for a renewed call for the election process with the > >> new rule and forget the past? Lets be practical and move forward ASAP. > >> > >> Best > >> > >> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez > >> +506 8837 7176 > >> Skype: carlos.raulg > >> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) > >> On 3 Aug 2016, at 8:11, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > >> > >>> I second Niels's views. I have refrained from expressing any opinion > >>> about the nominations until the nominations are closed and we are > >>> discussing candidate statements. I have always done so. > >>> > >>> --MM > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf Of > >>>> Niels ten Oever > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 10:30 AM > >>>> To: [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > >>>> Subject: +1's and support > >>>> > >>>> Dear all, > >>>> > >>>> Even though I think the regular display of +1's is a signal of > >>>> mutual support > >>>> and camaraderie. I have the feeling that sometimes it is drowning > >>>> out other > >>>> discussions about content on the list. > >>>> > >>>> May I also remind people that the voting happens later, so the > >>>> candidates > >>>> need your support is even more then. > >>>> > >>>> I'm greatly looking forward to the statements of the candidates. > >>>> > >>>> All the best, > >>>> > >>>> Niels > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Niels ten Oever > >>>> Head of Digital > >>>> > >>>> Article 19 > >>>> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org> > >>>> > >>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > >>>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org> > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >