I would be very cautious about drawing inferences about why
the GAC had not made moves to participate in the NomCom in any
way, shape or
form. There may be more substance behind non-participation than
just discomfort
with the possible terms of participation.
Sam L.
On 24/08/2015 12:03 PM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
[log in to unmask]"
type="cite">
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:17 AM,
"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
The GAC
has a free seat in the NomCom but it was the decision of
the GAC not to use it. One reason was the confidentiality
under wich the NomCom operates and the inability of a
potential GAC NomCom member to present a consensus among
GAC members for the proposed candidates. Whenh I chaired
the NomCom I offered on "observer" Position but even this
was rejected by the GAC. My understanding is that this is
sdtill an open door but it is up to the GAC to enter the
room.
Yes, they were approached by Nomcom during the last
cycle about participation, there was even some public
discussion about it (Singapore I think?), but no
resolution. But what is especially germane to this
conversation is that the GAC seat is a non-voting liaison.
-- BK
--
------------------------------------------------
"It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
in an unjust state" -Confucius
------------------------------------------------
Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
email: [log in to unmask] Skype: slanfranco
blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852