7B. National Appeals Committee nominations (5 positions)

[Aris Marghetis]

The ability to work well in a committee discussion is essential for the smooth running of this process.

As official licensing has been introduced by FIDE as of 2013, it is also my personal opinion and recommendation that we (the CFC) select 5 licensed International Arbiters for the committee.

I wanted to express my agreement with Mark's two comments above. I prefer committee members who are most interested in efficient decisions based on realistic considerations, as opposed to more esoteric theoretical discussions with less practical added value. I also agree that we should give more weight to arbiters who are FIDE-licenced. For your consideration, I am a FIDE-licenced Class D IA (& IO), serving on this committee for the last 2 years, willing to continue.

[Michael Barron]

I also agree that we should give more weight to arbiters who are FIDE-licenced.

With all due respect to our licensed arbiters, I believe we need different categories to be represented at the National Appeals Committee.
In particular, we need at least 1 chess player - not arbiter.
As well we need geographic diversity - as many provinces as possible to be represented.

[Christopher Mallon]

With all due respect to our licensed arbiters, I believe we need different categories to be represented at the National Appeals Committee.
In particular, we need at least 1 chess player - not arbiter.
As well we need geographical diversity - as many provinces as possible to be represented.

Whatever your belief, the handbook states that the committee will be made up of 5 arbiters.

Mark, since you want to be on the committee this year, and since you apparently don't want me to be on the committee, perhaps you can answer a question?
I've always been curious as to why you forwarded the entire internal NAC discussions about an appeal in January 2012 to the appellant, without the consent or even prior knowledge of the rest of the committee?