[PC-NCSG] [Gnso-ncph-leadership] NCPH v-chair election - just what we all have time for
Amr Elsadr
aelsadr
Fri Aug 14 16:54:13 EEST 2015
Hi,
To be honest, it seems to me that eliminating the unacceptable first, or just moving directly to electing the most desirable is of little consequence, which is why I am in favour of just moving this along. Making these decisions in the NCPH doesn?t really work without creating a consensus. So cutting to the chase and communicating directly with the CSG on candidacy (council chair/VC) issues will probably always work out best, whichever method we agree ultimately end up using.
Thanks.
Amr
> On Aug 14, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>
> This is my first time experiencing this process so am largely attempting to understand the issues and processes involved. That said, I've come to he realization that on issues like this involving Council procedures I ultimately wind up where Avri generally starts from. I actually like the proposal to eliminate the unacceptable and then moving on from there. Although I'm not fully engaged in this debate please count me as supporting Avri's position to the extent it matters.
>
> As to the Ombudsman proposal below: no. His remit currently is limited to fairness, not community dispute resolution. It may make sense to add to his remit once he is chosen and responds to the community but as long as he is chosen by the Bosrd I'd prefer to leave him out of NCPH affairs.
>
> Ed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Aug 14, 2015, at 1:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> i think i am the only dissenting voice.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>> On 14-Aug-15 02:48, 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
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> 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
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list