[PC-NCSG] [urgent] NCPH candidate nomination

[David Cake]

	I apologise for missing the conf call with Heather on Wednesday. I was actually doing a live tv show at the time (only for community TV, but still kept me busy).
	A few thoughts below

> On 24 Sep 2015, at 11:24 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Marilia,
> 
> Responses in-line below:
> 
>> On Sep 24, 2015, at 4:22 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, I can?t say that I agreed with her views on all issues raised during the call,
>> 
>> Neither do I, but I guess we would not agree with Jonathan Robinson's views on all issues, or even to each other's views inside the NCSG. What exactly your key concern was, Amr?
> 
> One of the substantive issues I disagree with her on is her view on constituency representation on council vs. SG representation. Although this should not impact her management of the dialogue on council (if/when that becomes necessary), I would prefer a chair who was sympathetic to NCSG interests in how council representation and management should be conducted.
> 
> The time may come when the council chair may be required to interface with the board organisational effectiveness committee (OEC ? previously known as SIC) on this issue on behalf of the council. I?m guessing a chair who is either from the NCSG or the CPH may do this in a manner more to our liking than someone from the IPC.

	I agree. Handling of the OEC and response to the review is one of the major issues that makes council leadership important in the next year. The constituency issue is going to be the one that really matters.

> The other issue I had was her concern with the direction the GAC/GNSO CG?s work is headed. This is something I?ve heard voiced in passing a number of times by CSG councillors, but no real rationale was offered, so I?m not sure what the problem is. The way I see it, this group?s work is constructive (or is trying to be anyway). If the objectives of the group are realised, then GAC early engagement in the GNSO?s PDP provides the GNSO with the opportunity to understand and engage with the GAC on their concerns regarding gTLD policy, and address them (one way or another) prior to GAC Advice being issued to the board.

	I agree on this too - the GAC/GNSO CG has been very effective IMO, and I very much would like to see it continue in the direction it is going. I don?t know what CSG concerns are, I?d like to hear them (and perhaps encourage the CSG to put someone on the group when its membership is renewed).

> 
> I didn?t agree with Jonathan in all things over the past two years, but generally don?t think he was a bad chair at all. He was always fair in chairing all discussions, as well as how he represented council positions when he needed to. Still?, I?m hoping our next chair will be a little more aggressive in repping the GNSO with the board and the GAC.
> 
>>> and still have concerns with a member of the IPC chairing the council while it is managing the process for PDPs on  a subsequent round of new gTLDs, next gen RDS and a review of the UDRP.
>>> 
>> Fair enough. Although this seems contradictory to me, if you believe, like you said, she would keep her word about neutrality.
> 
> Yes?, I believe it is her intent to remain neutral. If she is ultimately elected, we will have to see how well she will be able to deliver on that promise when confronted with the special interests of the group she belongs to. So her promising neutrality, and actually being able to pull it off may be two different things. We need to acknowledge that this will always be a possibility.


	I agree. I also think that the significance of council leadership in council decisions is less significant that some think, the GNSO WG processes are fairly locked down and clearly responsible to the council not leadership once they get rolling, AoC reviews are very independent once appointed, etc , so I?m much less concerned than Stephanie with the role of leadership in WHO2, etc. Leadership matters most for cross-AC/SO work, especially where it is new.

	David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150925/cbf6e775/attachment.sig>