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

[Stephanie Perrin]

Hi Everyone!

I have been staying out of this discussion because as the incoming NCSG 
Chair, I sense that a torch may be thrown in my direction two weeks from 
now, and I will have to undertake some revision of our Charter.  As 
others have stated, there is no rule that prevents a person from running 
for both constituencies.  I believe there are such rules in other SGs, 
and I will do my homework over the next two weeks.

As Dorothy has said so well, fractious (if frank) discussions on this 
list may not be helping us work together. Perhaps we can try to focus on 
some positive steps moving forwards.  And if I may paraphrase what she 
said in her second last sentence...the proof of the pudding is in the 
eating.

Personally, I do feel that we should have some kind of rule whereby a 
person represents one constituency at a time....which is not to say in 
the slightest that we cannot move back and forth, join both, or become 
just an NCSG member eschewing all identification of constituency.  The 
plain fact is that taking a leadership role in NCSG, wherever one does 
it, is demanding.  Our primary job here is policy development.....and as 
I have said many times, if you are not paying attention to policy, not 
following the development of documents and comments, you are not really 
helping us out in our primary work.  To all those who do....who 
volunteer to hold the pen, pester the other commenters to contribute on 
time, etc., many many thanks.  As leaders, we hate having to do this all 
the time.   To my way of thinking, all leaders should be following the 
PDP work and sharing that load, which is a serious time commitment.  We 
should not have to rely on a few workhorses to actually join the PDPs 
and do the fighting. We are stretched to the limits folks.  If tempers 
seem a little frayed on this list at times, please be understanding. 
Just ask me how many hours some of our people are putting in on our 
collective behalf....I try to keep track.

So while I hope this discussion will all be resolved amicably by the 
time I take over from Farzi as NCSG Chair....and noting that she has 
been working absolutely tirelessly on our behalf, under difficult and 
trying circumstances....I would be happy to discuss whether a rule 
change is in order.  Thanks to those who have made this suggestion.

At some point, preferably not in the middle of a rather heated 
discussion, I would like to bring up the topic of how we communicate on 
this list.  We have different cultural expectations, in my view.  For 
some of us, a frank discussion of facts can be construed as a personal 
attack.  As a North American, I tend to favor frankness, hopefully with 
a view to appreciating that people are volunteering their time and have 
feelings and interests wrapped up in this work.  Nevertheless, we need 
to be able to discuss what is happening, introduce facts, and not be 
worried about flattering everyone all the time.  If it will help, I will 
undertake to send out a "good job everyone!!!" note every month to 
remind us (and myself) that we are all trying our best.  However, please 
let us not take criticism personally.  We need to be direct with one 
another to be clear about our expectations and goals.

Stephanie Perrin

On 2018-10-10 02:54, dorothy g wrote:
> Dear Friends,  These exchanges are not helping to build our 
> community.  Also certain language and accusations have been made by 
> some parties that are not helpful. Please stop and let us get on with 
> the main tasks. If there are serious procedural concerns we should be 
> clear on what exactly needs to be changed and why without 
> personalising the situation. I believe our two communities work 
> together and we should not squabble over travel support.This is petty. 
> Let us appreciate that different members of the community contribute 
> in different ways. Someone was elected. If the rules made them 
> ineligible that should have been sorted out before the election. Let 
> us move on.
> Farzaneh, Thanks for objecting to those 'gender-biased' adjectives. 
> Women should not be bullied into silence. As I have said earlier we 
> will miss you. We may not always agree but I have always found you to 
> be professional in your approach.
> David let me say that most of us are looking forward to you making 
> stellar contributions during your term.  This remains the best way to 
> silence detractors.
>
> best regards
>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 6:37 AM David Cake <dave at davecake.net 
> <mailto:dave at davecake.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
>>     On 10 Oct 2018, at 10:53 am, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
>>     <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     The only certainty I have in the current case is that out of
>>     fairness, it should not be possible to pile up travel grants by
>>     virtue of holding multiple positions. Again, I do not know
>>     whether this has occurred or is occuring in our present case.
>>
>>     And what I understand here as "piling up" is not having several
>>     opportunities to obtain travel funds for one given meeting, but
>>     actually obtaining more than "one" allocation of travel funds
>>     through the multiple hats or getting travel funds more often than
>>     others just by virtue of holding several positions. I do not know
>>     what coordinating mechanisms there are between NCSG/NPOC/NCUC as
>>     far as travel grants are concerned, and whether there are rules
>>     as to "who pays" (or who /should /pay) for people with multiple
>>     hats, but that is also something that could and should be discussed.
>
>     Travel funding is a complex issue, but I do not believe that
>     acquiring multiple travel funding without re-allocation is likely
>     to happen within our current SG system. There are some slight
>     wrinkles here and there (such as using funds from one sources to
>     top up travel support from another, as has happened for various
>     reasons when ICANN funding does not cover a full meeting or
>     meeting associated events), but I certainly do not anticipate that
>     the amount of travel resources available overall will be in any
>     way reduced.
>     There are also, of course, funding for various special purpose
>     roles within ICANN (such as WGs, mentoring, etc), but they each
>     have separate rules.
>
>     David
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>     Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto: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/20181011/2b61a94b/attachment.html>