[PC-NCSG] CCT

[Tapani Tarvainen]

Hi Ed,

I agree on both counts: don't really like this kinds of process bypass
in principle, but if BC is doing it, we should too.

As for EC vs. PC, I'd tend to think PC would be more appropriate
(without digging into our charter).

Tapani

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:34:30AM -0500, Edward Morris (egmorris1 at toast.net) wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>   
>  Sorry to bother you again.
>   
>  The BC has decided to go around the approved process and get yet another 
> commercial representative appointed to the CCT, citing gender diversity. 
> Their letter requesting special consideration is attached.
>   
>  NCSG member Stacie Walsh was also nominated by two GNSO parties.
>   
>  Frankly, I'm philosophically opposed to attempts to subvert the process 
> that this letter typifies. That said, I'm mindful of our responsibility to 
> aggressively represent our members.
>   
>  Should we send  a similar letter citing both gender diversity and the lack 
> of ideological diversity on the CCT; i.e. we agree with the BC on the lack 
> of gender diversity but believe Stacie is the stronger candidate based upon 
> the underrepresentation both of the noncommercial community and the lack of 
> age diversity of selectees.
>   
>  I'm not sure who should approve /. disapprove this idea is  it the EC or 
> PC?) but do think we need to consider it. We are seriously underrepresented 
> on the CCT, more so of this BC ploy is successful.
>   
>  Best,
>   
>  Ed
>   
>   
>