[NCUC-DISCUSS] David and his many positions at NCUC/NCSG/NPOC

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi,

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.

Best,

Rafik

Le jeu. 11 oct. 2018 à 06:39, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> This email thread raises an important issue that I find contradicting to
> what the
> NCUC/NCSG/NPOC 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.
>
> 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.
>
> I suggest to add this suggestion on the agenda for discussion at ICANN 63
> meeting.
>
> Best wishes
> Nadira
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 22:31 Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> wrote:
>
>> This discussion has become a bit weird. After all:
>>
>> * There's nothing in any bylaws or charters against being in NCUC EC
>> and NPOC EC at the same time.
>>
>> * There's no inherent conflict of interest between NCUC and NPOC, and
>> should there be such in some individual case, David presumably will
>> recuse himself.
>>
>> * David make his plan perfectly clear before the election, voters knew
>> it and voted him in.
>>
>> Admittedly this is a completely new situation, and it is an open
>> question how well it will work, but NCUC members have chosen to let
>> David try it. If it does cause problems, by all means let's fix them,
>> but I find it odd people are saying we should try to prevent this
>> situation from reoccurring before we've seen how it works out now.
>>
>> As for travel slots, I would find it inappropriate if David were to
>> declare he'll only accept them from one constituency. Whatever he
>> does, he should treat NCUC and NPOC as equally as possible. Of course
>> this situation calls for more cooperation and coordination between
>> NCUC and NPOC ECs than before, but I don't think that's a bad
>> thing.
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://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/20181011/a7b1e79c/attachment.html>