[PC-NCSG] Vice Chair elections

[Tapani Tarvainen]

Thank you Marilia.

By my count now we have Matthew, Stephanie and Marilia supporting
option 1 (no VC) and Stefania and Ed hedging their bets.

Of observers Avri and Bill support 1 as well.

I'm happy with 1, too.

Enough for me. Given the urgency of this I'll call it done
unless someone objects within half an hour.

Tapani

On Nov 07 11:34, Marilia Maciel (mariliamaciel at gmail.com) wrote:

> Option 1 would be my preference. Thanks
> 
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
> > wrote:
> 
> > Dear PC members,
> >
> > Please express your preferences quickly. We really need
> > to decide this fast.
> >
> > In the end I don't think this matters all that much, either
> > option will work as an incentive to resolve the issue,
> > which is the main point.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> >
> > On Nov 06 23:24, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I believe it will politicize the NCAs even more than they already are.
> > Yes
> > > it is unfortunate that selecting option 1 puts pressure on the chair and
> > the
> > > other vice chair....but it does not trouble me that they will be putting
> > > pressure on our house to get its act together.
> > >
> > > SP
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2016-11-06 21:12, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > > > One additional point here I forgot to mention: in option 2
> > > > there's the NCA clause, so if CSG tries to play dirty we
> > > > could invoke that and have the NCA as VC until they give up.
> > > >
> > > > Of course some future NCA might be disastrous but still
> > > > I don't see option 2 being any better for CSG than for us.
> > > >
> > > > Tapani
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 06 14:46, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Avri,
> > > > >
> > > > > Your point is good, but the situation would be reverse in the
> > > > > next round - in the long term it'd balance out.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I really don't think CSG would reject our candidate simply
> > > > > because it'd give them "half VC" ever after.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tapani
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Nov 06 14:30, avri doria (avri at apc.org) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you go with option 1, you can assume that there will be no
> > v-chair in
> > > > > > after Heather completes her term.  Whereas if you go with option 2
> > you
> > > > > > can assume that there will be alternating short term v-chairs,
> > which
> > > > > > means they would get every other temp slot - thus to their
> > advantage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I recommend option 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > avri
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 06-Nov-16 14:19, matthew shears wrote:
> > > > > > > so... I don't like inconsistencies from meeting to meeting and
> > would
> > > > > > > rather have pressure of no NCPH VC
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 06/11/2016 08:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> > > > > > > > FYI: CSG accepts whichever of the two alternatives for step 12
> > we
> > > > > > > > want. If we can agree on it that is. :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To recap, the choices were like this:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > > 12. If no agreement is reached in time for a council meeting,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [there will be no NCPH Vice Chair in that meeting]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [the non-incumbent SG nominates VC candidate for that meeting
> > only,
> > > > > > > > the other SG may only reject the candidate in favour of the
> > NCA;
> > > > > > > > should the situation reoccur, the nomination would alternate
> > > > > > > > between SGs from meeting to meeting]
> > > > > > > > "
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Opinions?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tapani
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Forwarded message from tonyarholmes
> > > > > > > > <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> -----
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear Tapani
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > First, thanks for the constructive discussion during this
> > morning's NCPH
> > > > > > > > meeting. Within the CSG we have since discussed how best to
> > progress the
> > > > > > > > remaining unresolved issue on point 12 and reach conclusion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The CSG would therefore like to propose that  the NCSG selects
> > its
> > > > > > > > preferred
> > > > > > > > approach on Point 12 and we would be willing to concur with
> > that choice.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Could you please let us know your decision.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tony
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- End forwarded message -----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> *Mar?lia Maciel*
> Digital Policy Senior Researcher, DiploFoundation
> 
> WMO Building *|* 7bis, Avenue de la Paix *| *1211 Geneva - Switzerland
> *Tel *+41 (0) 22 9073632 *| *
> *Email*: *MariliaM at diplomacy.edu <mariliam at diplomacy.edu>* *|** Twitter: *
> *@MariliaM*