[PC-NCSG] Reminder: Re: [council] FW: TR: Follow up / Invitation - RSVP - ICANN Leadership Training Programme (LTP) 2015

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Sam,

NPOC got a slot. Did you check with NPOC leadership about that before ?
NCSG got a slot too, only James approached me about his interest to  apply
for it. They may be other but they didn't inform me.

The deadline passed weeks ago. What we are talking about now is 1 slot
available to GNSO council and ther is suggestion to propose the newly
elected ncsg councillor .

Best,

Rafik
On Sep 22, 2015 3:57 AM, "Sam Lanfranco" <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> Amr,
>
> I stand corrected on my typo w/r to the acronym NCUC
> [non-commercial,...including individuals].
>
> My specific reference to NCUC came from Bill Drake's posting in which he
> wrote, among other things, that "there was one slot for a ?NCUC
> representative.?", hence my opening comment seeking clarity on process here.
>
> As for individual members of NCSG who fell that they are qualified, the
> more that apply the better. I support that and am urging younger members to
> apply.
>
> Sam
>
> On 21/09/2015 2:39 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Sam, I?m not sure how you reached the conclusion that the NCUC has any
> entitlement here. Please refer to Rafik?s clarification earlier on this
> thread. If NPOC hasn?t been asked to provide applicants to the leadership
> training program, then I suggest that NPOC leadership take this up with
> Glen or At-Large staff. Alternatively (or additionally), just ask your
> members to submit applications here:
> http://www.formpl.us/form/0B10rrZn6kIB0T0ctVG5DSjd6RVk/ An unrelated
> question ? why are you referring to the NCUC as ?the individual users
> constituency?? That isn?t what NCUC stands for, nor does the term
> accurately represent its nature or membership. I?m guessing you already
> know this. :) Thanks. Amr
>
> On Sep 21, 2015, at 7:46 PM, Sam Lanfranco <Lanfran at yorku.ca> <Lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Still seeking clarity on process here. Does this mean that there are no "slots" for NCSG nor for NPOC, and that somehow the individual users constituency (NCUC) has a preferred entitlement here, and that maybe that entitlement extends to a preference over individual applications (which were called for). Having to have learned two sets of principles for governance procedures (Canada, USA) is there a third one with unusual principles that I missed?
>
> Sam (NPOC Policy Chair)
>
> On 21/09/2015 2:42 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2015, at 11:56 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The process is confusing because we don't appoint people to such slot but they have to apply by themselves. Anyone can do it.
>
>
> Indeed the process needs a tweak at ALAC?s end.  They told me there was one slot for a ?NCUC representative.? So I did an open call and put the Exec. Comm through the exercise of debating and deciding among contending apps, which took time.  Then maybe a month or so after notifying them of the resulting selection (Hanane Boujemi of Hivos) I got a note from Gisella and Sandra saying they?d received a direct app from a newish member who?d never said anything on our list etc. and would we support providing a second slot to NCUC.  This seemed a bit arbitrary and would have been unfair to the member who went through our process and was turned down, so I said if they want to give NCUC two slots then I should do another open call in fairness to all and their preferred addition could apply and probably get it, since the losing applicant has since decided not to come to Dublin. End of conversation.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150922/61d17062/attachment.html>