[PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for

[Stephanie Perrin]

sounds right to me..
Steph

On 2015-08-13 20:48, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> can I understand we got a rough consensus here about the response to 
> send to CSG: agreeing about their proposal for this year only, 
> discussing about alternation for next years and working to let them 
> commit to that. also I will ask them to discuss more in NCPH list .
>
> for next long term process for VC election, we will conduct 
> consultation within NCSG membership, managed by PC.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2015-08-12 18:17 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     On Aug 12, 2015 6:05 PM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > That sounds good to me. Lets get the ball rolling on this year?s
>     election of a VC, but make clear to Steve and the CSG that we
>     still need to talk more about how the rotations would work. I hope
>     we can start on that sooner rather than later.
>
>     That is the goal, getting a clear answer to CSG
>     >
>     > May I also ask a question? Is there a reason why we?re not using
>     the NCPH leadership list to hold this conversation?
>     >
>     I asked several time that we conduct discussions there but the
>     list sounds dead for now (while they get the proposal from the
>     message Avri sent to that list)
>
>     > And one last point?, after we agree to proceed with this year?s election, our agreement to a formal
>     process should be provisional, and only finalised after we hold a
>     discussion about it on NCSG-DISCUSS. Our members really do need to
>     be made aware that we are working these issues out with our NCPH
>     counterparts.
>
>     Yes that is the goal to document better the processes and keep
>     records. For NCSG list, yes sure but I hope the PC will take the
>     lead to do so and conduct the consultation. Maybe some work on how
>     to conduct consultation about positions on more systematic manner.
>
>     Rafik
>
>     >
>     > Thanks.
>     >
>     > Amr
>     >
>     > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:42 AM, Rafik Dammak
>     <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>     > >
>     > >  Hi,
>     > >
>     > > lets focus here on the priority task: agreeing in the answer
>     to CWG about the proposal. can I understand we can accept the
>     amendment and acknowledge the concerns raised by Avri. the
>     proposal is for this year, after that we will have to discuss
>     about rotation proposal and how we need to keep their commitments,
>     maybe by including the ombudsman in the process.
>     > >
>     > > for the chair election, it will be good to break the what is
>     becoming a tradition to have a chair from CPH, but we should agree
>     first on what we see as a good chair. we can discuss that later.
>     > > I should answer Steve soon about our position.
>     > >
>     > > Best,
>     > >
>     > > Rafik
>     > >
>     > > 2015-08-12 0:51 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>     <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>:
>     > > Hi
>     > >
>     > > So Tony?s a no, but appreciates the interest.  Plans to kick
>     back more.
>     > >
>     > > Bill
>     > >
>     > >
>     > >> On Aug 11, 2015, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>     > >>
>     > >> Voila yes, except of course that would tie up one of our best
>     guys right when we are losing Avri....leaving us newbies running
>     the ranch (yeah yeah I know, I cannot keep calling myself a newbie...)
>     > >> SP
>     > >> Perennially new (or is that Perrinially new??)
>     > >> On 2015-08-11 4:41, William Drake wrote:
>     > >>>
>     > >>>> On Aug 11, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Edward Morris
>     <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>     > >>>>
>     > >>>> That said, Amr is someone who would be acceptable to more
>     than a few CSG and CPH members.
>     > >>>
>     > >>> If so then voila, no?
>     > >>
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > _______________________________________________
>     > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > _______________________________________________
>     > > PC-NCSG mailing list
>     > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150814/c598d1d9/attachment-0001.html>