<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Yes Rafik the bylaws is not about encouraging participation. I didn't mean that. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">What I've written that the bylaws does allow holding simultaneous leadership positions at the same time. That is why I've recommended to be discussed. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">When having more individual vacancies in each of the leadership positions you will have more people for each role. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">- By the way, this problem is not only at the NCSG/NCUC/NPOC level but in the different constituencies within ICANN.<span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Also assigning different liaisons other than the leadership team to the different cross-communities working groups will reduce the volunteer burnouts and help bring more participation and might encourage new participation to the constituencies. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">As I've written that this problem might have been overlooked because there were very few volunteers then and there was the need to accommodate participation for the different duties. But what was then is different than the situation now, we could see members are contesting for the different role and from my perspective it is very encouraging and the NCSG don't want to loose this momentum. </div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 2:27 AM Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr" class="m_-3173440712481785851gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>I don't think there is a specific problem here to get new members to get into leadership. If you check the candidates for the election, you can find most of them joined NCUC in the last 3 years or more recently. It is not a bylaws problem as it already set a term limit, for example, enabling the regular renewal of leadership (if you check the leadership for the last years, you can see a lot of changes and new faces). In the end, it is about encouraging more people to get involved, participate actively and be ready to run for positions by preparation and getting experience and that is not a bylaw or procedural issue. </div></div></div></div><div><br></div>Best,<div><br></div><div>Rafik</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">Le jeu. 11 oct. 2018 à 06:39, Nadira Alaraj <<a href="mailto:nadira.araj@gmail.com" target="_blank">nadira.araj@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>This email thread raises an important issue that I find contradicting to what the </div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">NCUC/NCSG/NPOC</span> communities preaches. The tremendous efforts in capacity building programs and outreach to bringing new members to contribute to the policy work and leadership roles at the same time the stated bylaws doesn't help on this regards.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks Tapani for pointing that the bylaws does allows that. I think it might be that these bylaws were put at the time when there were few volunteers. But now the community is growing, hence there is need to revisit these bylaws to encourage new members to get into the leadership roles as an incentive to their actual contributions to the community work whether it is in policy or on managerial work. <br><br>I suggest to add this suggestion on the agenda for discussion at ICANN 63 meeting.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Best wishes </div><div dir="auto">Nadira </div><div dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 22:31 Tapani Tarvainen <<a href="mailto:ncuc@tapani.tarvainen.info" target="_blank">ncuc@tapani.tarvainen.info</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This discussion has become a bit weird. After all:<br>
<br>
* There's nothing in any bylaws or charters against being in NCUC EC<br>
and NPOC EC at the same time.<br>
<br>
* There's no inherent conflict of interest between NCUC and NPOC, and<br>
should there be such in some individual case, David presumably will<br>
recuse himself.<br>
<br>
* David make his plan perfectly clear before the election, voters knew<br>
it and voted him in.<br>
<br>
Admittedly this is a completely new situation, and it is an open<br>
question how well it will work, but NCUC members have chosen to let<br>
David try it. If it does cause problems, by all means let's fix them,<br>
but I find it odd people are saying we should try to prevent this<br>
situation from reoccurring before we've seen how it works out now.<br>
<br>
As for travel slots, I would find it inappropriate if David were to<br>
declare he'll only accept them from one constituency. Whatever he<br>
does, he should treat NCUC and NPOC as equally as possible. Of course<br>
this situation calls for more cooperation and coordination between<br>
NCUC and NPOC ECs than before, but I don't think that's a bad<br>
thing.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Tapani Tarvainen<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ncuc-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org" target="_blank">Ncuc-discuss@lists.ncuc.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><font face="Calibri"></font> </p></div></div></div></div></div>