NCSG Colleagues,
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:
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