RE: [council] Regarding working group membership

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Cary's concern about the challenges of excessively large task forces or
working groups is important and one we should focus on.  One way of
managing the concerns is to divide a large group into subgroups that
provide input into the full group.  I think we have used this fairly
successfully in the RN-WG.  (BTW, this technique is not limited to large
groups and can be used to speed progress.)

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cary Karp
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:54 AM
> Cc: GNSO Council
> Subject: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership
> 
> > Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on 
> the working 
> > group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal
> > footing with members of the working group.   In particular observers
> > will be able to join the mailing list, and attend 
> teleconferences or 
> > physical meetings."
> 
> If this applies without limit to the number of observers, a w.g.
> meeting can easily end up with an unmanageably large number 
> of attendees. A few dozen people with equal right to speak 
> means that even the briefest turn around the table on a 
> single question will take substantial time.
> 
> Even in a situation where every single member of an 
> unboundedly large w.g. has significant expertise to 
> contribute, the Town Hall model may not provide the best 
> basis for the focused determination of consensus on the 
> substantive issue(s) the group has been formed to address -- 
> at least not within the timeframes that w.g.'s are typically 
> given to complete their assignments.
> 
> A mailing list can readily absorb a large constituency and is 
> likely to be exempt from these concerns. The same might also 
> apply to the rather infrequent face-to-face meetings. 
> Teleconferences are, however, quite a different matter (also 
> having potentially tangible central budgetary consequence if 
> equal footing also means that everyone is provided with 
> toll-free dial-in access). 
> 
> I very much support the initiative to provide a more nimble 
> channel for contributions from interested members of the 
> community, but fear that even if the current proposal may 
> have that effect in form, it will simply end up introducing 
> other impediments instead.
> 
> (There is another somewhat more negative line of reasoning 
> that might also fairly be mentioned, but I won't pursue it 
> beyond noting that this model also leaves w.g. discussion 
> vulnerable to special interest
> domination.)
> 
> /Cary
>