[NCUC-DISCUSS] The use of +1 's ... and why some people might be reluctant to post

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Mamadou,

Thanks for the message,
it is hard to know in which reason the +1 are based and we cannot know
people intentions. We can see it as one among others inputs. That is why I
also encouraged that members, when voting, look at more clear input like a
statement of interest, responses from candidates to make their decisions.
Based on what candidates state and committed, members can make them
accountable when next time they run for re-election.

Best,

Rafik

2017-08-03 7:50 GMT+09:00 Mamadou LO <alfamamadou at hotmail.com>:

> Hi all!!
> My real concern with those +1 support is what does they really mean for
> the sender. Are they based on friendship, relationship, gender support,
> régional support or on competencies recognition, background work..I think
> if it does mean something for the benefit of our community, it has to be
> based first on people willingness to actively participate on ICANN
> policies, operations and procedures discussion. Our community is growing
> and I think we have the challenge to work on internal communication to add
> relevance on our practices and supports.
>
> Mamadou
>
>
> Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Samsung Galaxy.
>
>
> -------- Message d'origine --------
> De : Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Date : 31/07/2017 23:38 (GMT+00:00)
> À : dorothy g <dgdorothydg at gmail.com>
> Cc : ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> Objet : Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] The use of +1 's ... and why some people might
> be reluctant to post
>
> hi,
>
> I understand that people want to express support someone by +1 for several
> personal reasons but it doesn't mean necessarily they are voting or
> endorsing the candidate explicitly. It is a practice that we had for many
> years but it doesn't replace a formal process like election or selection
> process like for nomcom, the charters are clear about those processes.
>
> Whatever for election or appointment, I strongly urge everyone to review
> the statement of interest made by the candidates, to ask them questions in
> the mailing list or the webinars so the candidate can indicate their
> thoughts and commitments. With that members can make an opinion about
> candidates without any influence or interference.
> That gives an idea about the expectations of the candidates from their
> membership but also indicate how much they know about the work to be done
> in the positions to be elected/appointed for.  That is also one of the
> effective ways to participate for members by carefully selecting and
> selecting representatives.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-08-01 1:28 GMT+09:00 dorothy g <dgdorothydg at gmail.com>:
>
>> We need to distinguish between the use of plus 1 for agreement on a
>> discussion point and the use of plus 1 when people believe it will
>> influence a choice between candidates.
>> On the former I would agree with Ginger on the latter if my vote counts
>> give me a voting platform otherwise .....
>>
>> best
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Ginger Paque <virginiap at diplomacy.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I just sent this message offlist to Sean, in reply to his comments:
>>>
>>> *Sean said:*
>>> Guys if am not mistaking, the email from the NCUC Chair suggests that a
>>> decision has been made by the EC on this matter.  ...  May I suggest
>>> the +1s be put to rest.
>>>
>>> *Ginger replied OFFLIST:*
>>> ...  I don't want to get involved in a discussion on the list, but I
>>> think the arguments in favor of +1, and the continued use of +1 tell us
>>> that it is a very important and useful tool. What's your objection? I'd
>>> rather see you contradicting the chair than discouraging the use of +1,
>>> especially for those who don't write well in English :)
>>>
>>> *Ginger (new)*
>>> I've decided now to use this as a clear example of another reason people
>>> lurk instead of engaging, and might prefer to use +1s. I also note that it
>>> is possible that Sean's comment was meant to be read between the lines.
>>>
>>> In the last year or so on several IG-related lists, posting a comment
>>> often elicits (not referring to the chair here in any way, shape, or form,
>>> just using the topic as an example) an antagonistic and/or aggressive
>>> response instead of discussion. I mention it here because it is relevant to
>>> the +1 issue. My English is decent, and I'm pretty outspoken myself, but I
>>> have to admit it has seriously affected my engagement.
>>>
>>> Happy (hopefully) IG discussions.
>>> Cheers, Ginger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Virginia Paque
>>> DiploFoundation
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
>>> www.avast.com
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>>> <#m_4455592454096666218_m_-4248269335915716281_m_9141991994308763827_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170803/3d525229/attachment.html>