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

[Remmy Nweke]

Thanks Stephanie for your Frank disposition.

Remmy

On 11 Oct 2018 1:58 p.m., "Stephanie Perrin" <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

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> wrote:

>
>
> On 10 Oct 2018, at 10:53 am, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <
> 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
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>

_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing
listNcuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.orghttps://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/a73e2f1b/attachment.html>