RE: [council] Possible roles for GNSO vice chair/s

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

Would anyone besides Philip be willing to work on this concept in the
next several days?  I would be happy to provide a telephone bridge or we
can have Glen provide one.

Bruce - is this okay with you and are you willing and able to
participate?

It seems to me that our deadline should be on or about one week from
today to come up with a proposed plan for consideration by the full
Council on the list.

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 Ross Rader
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:19 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: Re: [council] Possible roles for GNSO vice chair/s
> 
> Philip Sheppard wrote:
> 
> > In either case I'm happy to work with Chuck and Bruce in writing a 
> > short job description for two vice chairs.
> 
> Do we need two? I mean, the registrar constituency has the 
> equivalent of three, but we also have a larger number of face 
> to face meetings per year than council does, and also, a 
> much, much larger number of members
> - the logistical complexity is much, much higher.
> 
> Might it make more sense to create one position and leave 
> room for more in the future as we come to understand our 
> needs and capacity more closely?
> 
> Again, I agree with the additional structure, it can only 
> help. But I'd like to be deliberate and understand fully what 
> the implications of our plans our. I'm not sure that we've 
> adequately considered capacity and constraints to the point 
> where "two " is indeed the magic number.
> 
> > This need not be linked to our timetable for electing the 
> chair though 
> > if that's too great a rush.
> 
> Great idea. We should put some time bounds around completing 
> this task however. We have a habit of letting administrative 
> design tasks hang around much too long. It might be 
> constructive to assign an arbitrary drop dead date to ensure 
> that we continue to move forward in a constructive manner.
> 
> -r
> 
>