RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds - chairs and vice chairs

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Philip makes a valid point.  An important key to effective leadership is
that those being led will follow the leader and that is more likely to
happen if there is strong support for the leader.  I suspect that most
of us are professional enough that we would respectfully follow whatever
chair is selected but, in my opinion, that would not necessarily be
optimal.

What are our objectives in a chair?  # 1 in my mind is effective
leadership skills that can be exercised in an unbiased manner. I do not
believe that that means that the chair cannot express personal views or
the views of his/her interest group, but there does have to be
clarification when that happens. #2 in my opinion is availability to
commit the time required to serve.

Some key elements of effective leadership skills in my view are: good
written & oral communication skills; ability to tactfully handle
differences of opinion; ability to listen and consider alternative
points of view in an objective, non-emotional manner; well organized;
dependable; trustworthy; good meeting management skills.

Once we identify candidates who are willing and have the time to serve
as chair, I think all of us can evaluate skills like these in an
objective and nonpolitical manner, so it may not be that hard to gain
60% support of both houses.  At the same time, we have to come up with a
selection mechanism that covers situations where they may not be at
least 60% support in both houses.  In cases where there are multiple
candidates, an successive elimination of candidates as Philip suggests
in a later email may be worth considering.

Chuck


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 7:22 AM
> To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q18 on thresholds - chairs and vice chairs
> 
> 
> I am confused by our logic here.
> 
> The reason for a 60% of both House threshold it to get a 
> chair that has popular support.
> The alternative is a majority vote system that always 
> produces a result eventually.
> 
> What is the logic then in saying if we fail to get popular 
> support we should accept a chair imposed upon us who be 
> definition has zero support?
> 
> Either we pursue a system of popular support or we do not.
> 
> Philip
> 
>