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

[Liz Williams <lizawilliams@xxxxxxx>]

Hello everyone

There seems to be something of a deadlock going on.

> Has anyone thought of having an appointed chair from outside the  
> group?  For example, not from any of the houses or something with  
> direct chairing experience?  Could that be something the Nominating  
> Committee could help with?
> Looking at Chuck's long list of requirements "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"  that's a tall order  
> for any organisation let alone one where there are such conflicting  
> points of view on each and every issue!

Now, having added fuel to the fire, I'm outta here!

Liz
...

Liz Williams
+44 1963 364 380
+44 7824 877 757



On 15 May 2009, at 14:12, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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