[NCUC-EC] Constituency Day

[Edward Morris]

Hi Bill,


On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 5:51 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> On Oct 28, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Edward Morris <edward.morris at ALUMNI.USC.EDU>
> wrote:
>
> I have charity commitments (Halloween functions) both the evenings of the
> 31st and 1st. I'd love to get out of them but my companion here might
> consider homicide if I tried. So, I'm available the 31st until around 17:30
> UTC and until 17:00 UTC on the 1st.
>
>
> I have 3 conf calls on the 31st now so if the 1st works for you I'd prefer
> it.  Could others here make a call then, e.g. somewhere in the 12-16:00 UTC
> window?  I'm not going to put up a Doodle unless there's a few indications
> of possible participation.
>
>

That time would be great for me. If folks need it at night UTC I'll do
everything I can to attend via iphone but I can't give any guarantees. The
12:00 - 16:00 window certainly works for me. Thanks.

>
>
>
>> *2) Constituency Day*
>>
>> For CD, I propose this tentative schedule
>>
>> 9:00-9:15 Welcome etc
>>
>> 9:15-9:45 Pending Elections
>>
>>
>> [we've pushed back candidate statements to the day after per Ed.  I'm not
>> sure how much we'll have to talk about, but probably one can expect someone
>> to ask the incumbents if they're standing again…}
>>
>
> If we're into more abstract things it might be nice to get consensus on
> determining the voting roll. Of course, I'm looking towards the future
> bylaws vote in suggesting this is something we need deal with more formally.
>
>
> I don't understand, this is an admin process, and Tapani seems to have it
> under control.  What would the EC need to get consensus on?  And what would
> count as consensus…the three of us who reply to email?
>
>
>
> Sorry. I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

I was suggesting that if we were looking for something for the entire group
to have input in the nature of our electoral roll was one item we could
discuss. NCSG has a time consuming but comprehensive rote for determining
the electorate. With bylaws revision needing the approval of 60% of 40% of
"eligible voters" the fact we arguably don't have any understanding or
definition of "eligible voter" might be a bit problematic ...nothing
pertaining to the current election and upon reflection perhaps best left to
future meetings.





>
>> 9:45-10:40 Policy Committee and Bylaws
>>
>>
>> 10:40-11:00 Coffee
>>
>> 11:00-11:45 Visit of the ATRT II Team
>>
>>
>> [I think we really need to prepare for this.  It shouldn't be a bilateral
>> between me and Brian like last time.  Members need to read the draft report
>> and related materials and weigh in on this important process, and one would
>> think the EC should be able to take a lead in prompting discussion]
>>
>
>
> I've read the draft report, don't understand it completely, but will try
> to be prepared for the meeting using pre-CD days in BA to ask questions
> of those more knowledgeable about the subject.
>
>
> Great.  I don't want to do another bilateral discussion with Brian while
> folks sit there, doesn't look too good to the body charged with assessing
> accountability etc.
>


I'll be ready to contribute in some form. I'll probably inundate poor Avri
with a bunch of questions beforehand but on ATRT I think we all tend to do
this. I'm just glad she's always willing to respond.


>
> *Vacancies: the new need will need to make some appointments, wouldn't be
>> bad to briefly set the agenda
>>  — a rep. to PIR (Robin's still it but it's not been an active link,
>> need to see if she wants to continue)
>> — two NCSG EC reps (currently Rafik and Milton)
>>  — two NCSG PC reps (currently Wendy and Avri)
>> *What am I forgetting?
>>
>>
>> If Rafik is going to step down we need to to replace him on NomCom.
>
>
> I could be interested
>


Appointing a NomCom rep is arguably the most important thing we as an EC
do. It all starts with the Board and NomCom is one of the few places we
have someone positioned with real influence to create change there.

You're qualified for anything this place has to offer, Bill, but your
networking capabilities, knowledge of the inside ICANN game, knowledge of
the players and their capabilities...well, when Kathy suggested that we
consider someone other than Rafik for the position,  she listed qualities a
NomCom rep should have and I thought at the time they described you. You
could probably say the same about a number of positions here,  which
undoubtedly makes the decisions you have that much more difficult. It's a
lot easier being a person like myself with severely limited capabilities.
:) That said, if you wanted to do NomCom you have my support and I assume
the support of everyone else here with a functioning cranium, and even
those like myself without one.



>
> I think the CD proposal is excellent and commend the Chair.
>
>
> Ok so if nobody else has input I will send to the members and get it on
> the record
>
>
> Thanks again.

Ed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20131029/e02a2d64/attachment.html>