[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for NSCG endorsement -- GNSO Liaison to the GAC

[Ayden Férdeline]

Thanks Rafik.

Am I correct to presume that the names put forward to the SSC were Julf and Paul?

I have observed on the SSC mailing list today that Staff seem to have railroaded through the recommendation of the BC in relation to the ATRT3 candidates, and that the status of Michael Karanicolas remains unchanged. If it is also the feeling of our SSC representatives, I hope that we may consider putting forward an objection, suggesting that the candidate ranking be altered. But I realise I am just an observer :-)

—Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Request for NSCG endorsement -- GNSO Liaison to the GAC
> Local Time: 11 September 2017 2:13 AM
> UTC Time: 11 September 2017 01:13
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
> avri doria <avri at apc.org>, ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi all,
>
> thanks for comments. I see there is no support for endorsing so many candidates. I can conclude that our decision to send only 2 candidates stands and we can express some preference/ranking to our SSC representations to use that during deliberations. Poncelet and myself are already in the PC list and we can share the info with Renata.
>
> based on the ongoing discussion, I  see that the mix between GNSO knowledge and Gov/GAC work is important criteria, something to be used by SSC representatives too.
>
> I am taking note of the discussion and how we proceeded for the appointment , to the draft for NCSG Policy committee procedures.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-09-11 4:34 GMT+09:00 Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>:
>
>>         I agree with Avri, and others, in the sense that this is not going to be a Team that will have NCSG reps, this is one GAC Liaison for the whole GNSO, so it is far more important it can fully navigate procedures, formalities and very high end work than other qualities, if it would be a GNSO team following GAD work, then I would have a different approach, maybe giving more trust to someone I believe more sensitive to NCSG core issues or deep knowledge on NCSG matters, so it can balance out perspectives, and several head will share they GAC knowledge to make it work. Since is only one person for the whole bridge between GNSO and GAC, I would be more happy to recommend one or two that have deep knowledge on how GNSO/GAC procedures work. Reviewing all, I think our first two choices do stand out.
>>         For the same reasons I just exposed, I think this is not the best scenario to “use it to make leadership”, since is not an NCSG slot what we are trying to fill.
>>
>>         As always, I can be convinced otherwise with the right arguments, this are just my intuitions, although strong.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martín
>>
>>> On Sep 10, 2017, at 12:45 AM, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> (observer)
>>>
>>> Should be someone of very familiar with GNSO procedures &c.
>>> and have some knowledge of how GAC and gov'ts work.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170912/a086ec51/attachment.htm>