Hi Bill,

That email was followed up by Milton's email

> 
> <http://mailman.ctyme.com/pipermail/ec-ncuc/2011-November/000121.html>  from Milton
> Is it possible to call for volunteers before making any commitments? 

> 
> <http://mailman.ctyme.com/pipermail/ec-ncuc/2011-November/000122.html> from Konstantinos 
> Of course that goes without saying...apologies if I took that for granted. 
> 

That looked like an objection to me.  I know Milton now claims it was not.  But I saw Milton's 'objection' and then Konstantinos' response and expected outreach to the NCUC membership.  After a few days of waiting for that outreach, I wrote to Konstantinos, and after 4 days, without any intervening discussion on the NCUC EC list, got the message that the issue was closed.  

This is the series of events I beleive was problematic and was evidence of a lack of transparency and accountability.

But I agree with you, in the future there should be open calls.  I personally think we need a process developed in NCUC for such transparency.  And I also think we need to select candidates for NCUC Chair and NCUC EC who commit to work in an open and transparent manner.

BR,

avri



On 16 Nov 2011, at 06:06, William Drake wrote:

> Hi Avri
> 
> While I don't particularly want to get in the middle of an unduly personalized disagreement, I'd hate to leave any misimpressions linger, so just for the record:
> 
> On Nov 15, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> On 15 Nov 2011, at 11:42, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> 
>>> 2.       During that period, Avri and I were appointed to the first NCSG EC, and later Avri was agreed as Chair of the NCSG EC. Here is the key fact: The procedure we used to appoint Avri and I were EXACTLY THE SAME as those used to appoint the current NCUC appointees: namely, deliberations among the NCUC Executive Committee, which consists of regional reps elected by the membership. There is no difference in the procedures. So I can understand why Konstantinos feels hurt and incredulous about the current situation.
>>> 
>> My point is that I see no evidence, or record in the archive of that discussion with the NCUC Executive Committee.  That is what I wanted to bring to light to make sure it never happened again.
> 
> I really don't understand this assertion.  I'm not on the EC, but it's clear that KK did in fact write to them 
> http://mailman.ctyme.com/pipermail/ec-ncuc/2011-November/000119.html and say:
> I would like to propose the following people to represent us in the various NCSG committees:
> 
> NCSG Executive Committee: Milton Mueller & Rafik Dammak
> NCSG Policy Committee: Konstantinos Komaitis & Brenden Kuerbis
> NCSG Finance Committee: Milton Mueller
> 
> In case I don't hear any objections, I will send the new NCSG chair the final list.
> 
> He proposed, and nobody objected, so voila.  We're all aware that agreement via non-contestation is not the most desirable basis for decisions, but it's hardly uncommon in CS coalitions of maxed out volunteers, including elsewhere in ICANN, e.g. ALAC and NPOC (which also didn't have a rip roaring debate over the selection of its people, .e.g. http://forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-voice/msg00012.html).  And as Milton noted, this is the same way the prior NCUC reps to NCSG bodies were selected, including you, so Konstantinos was just following precedent.  
> 
> Now that we're getting over transitional humps and we have people in place on the NCSG PC and EC (needed to consider membership applications promptly), going forward I'd prefer that there be an open call for nominations on the members list so anyone could throw their hat in the ring.  Whether it would be better to then have the NCUC EC do the selection or to make such posts elected alongside the chair and regional reps is something I suppose one could debate.  Certainly we should do whatever we can to improve transparency and participation in both constituencies and the SG.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
>