[NCUC-EC] EC Decision Making

[William Drake]

On Sep 24, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> On Sep 24 11:05, William Drake (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote:
> 
>> The length of time it took Ed to get responses on the SCI
>> appointment and all the unanswered questions and proposals I've
>> posed here about CD, ICANN Academy, etc etc. should by now make it
>> clear to all, after nine months of experience, that it just doesn't
>> make sense to hold up every little EC decision pending a majority
>> vote. It simply doesn't work
> 
> No offense intended, but that's not true.

Neither is obvious
> 
> We haven't had nine months of experience of that, rather we've hardly
> had *any*: you have not made any real effort to make people respond
> that way. (It's not the same as trying to engage them in a conversation.)

On the 19th I wrote to ask who we should nominate. After sending five follow up messages on the topic, on the 20th I proposed a decision and asked "Do this meet with your collective approval?"  In a follow up message to that one later the 20th, I asked "Could people please reply yea/nay quickly?"  Now it's four days later. In any other civil society process I've ever participated in for the past 30 years, and certainly in NCUC and NCSG, this would normally be deemed "formal" and "disciplined" enough.  Certainly I've never been hectored about such things before, or seen any other chairs endure similar.

>> As we are late, I am therefore going to tell the ICANN Academy
>> people that Tapani will be our person for Leadership Academy in BA.
> 
> Good.

How can it be good?  I'm proposing to do precisely what you just lectured against.  I should write back to Sandra and say sorry my notification was invalid because after five days only two EC members had responded to my proposal.