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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

While I agree with the substance of what you are saying, the discussions
being had on this topic clearly show that, at least to some people, there is
no guarantee that our body of professionals would always put politics aside
and elect a chair in "an objective and nonpolitical manner".

Stéphane


Le 15/05/09 15:12, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>