RE: [council] Point for Discussion

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

Mawaki,

I definitely did not mean to imply that the Council was in violation of
the Bylaws. The Bylaws do not define what "managing the policy
development process" means so I am sure it could be interpreted quite
differently by various people.  At the same time, I personally believe
that effective management is not a manager doing the work but rather a
manager leading and coordinating the work, evaluating it, and continuing
to improve the process.

In my opinion, this is what was intended in the Bylaws.  And in the
first few years of the DNSO, that is mostly what happened.  There were
lots of people besides Councilors involved in working groups.  Over time
though, many became very frustrated by how long it took and the Council
started moving to having work done by the Council as a whole and also
became much more reliant on voting.  I believe the LSE report reflects
this and that the Board Governance Committee WG also decided that this
was an issue.

Interesting, the Council has been moving back in this direction in the
last year plus and I think we have had some good successes.

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: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:43 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Point for Discussion
> 
> Chuck,
> I'm not sure what you mean to say with this. Maybe the 
> section you're quoting is not enough to give a comprehensive 
> view of the responsibilities regarding a PDP. Or do you mean 
> to say the council has been in violation of the bylaws by 
> developing policies itself as opposed to *just* managing the 
> process, which the whole GNSO was supposed to cary out?
> 
> Mawaki
> 
> 
> --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Actually Mawaki, I think the Bylaws support this view:
> > 
> > "Section 2. ORGANIZATION
> > 
> > The GNSO shall consist of (i) various Constituencies representing 
> > particular groups of stakeholders, as described in Section 
> 5 of this 
> > Article and (ii) a GNSO Council responsible for managing the policy 
> > development process of the GNSO."
> > 
> > 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 Mawaki
> > Chango
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 9:29 PM
> > > To: GNSO Council
> > > Subject: Re: [council] Point for Discussion
> > > 
> > > I fully agree with avri's comments here.
> > > Further, maybe the constituency discipline is the issue that
> > 
> > > makes some members on the board think that the council
> > should 
> > > become a management body of working group processes that
> > will 
> > > elaborate policies.
> > > 
> > > Mawaki
> > > 
> > > --- Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > Speaking personally, i would be concerned about such a
> > change for 
> > > > several reasons.  Among those reasons:
> > > > 
> > > > - There has to be a difference between appointing 3
> > representatives 
> > > > and appointing someone to carry the voice and vote of the 
> > > > constituency.  Although most of the constituencies seem to
> > 
> > > hold their 
> > > > representatives to uniform voting, i do not see anything
> > in the by 
> > > > laws mandating this.  I think it is important to maintain
> > the
> > > > 
> > > > possibility that every representative participates as an
> > trusted 
> > > > individual, in the knowledge that if she or he behaves 
> > > contrary to the 
> > > > interests of the constituencies, she/he might lose their
> > > > seat.   
> > > > Behaving in the interests of the constituency may not 
> > > always require 
> > > > constituency discipline.
> > > > 
> > > > - It would lessen the pressure to actually have people
> > attend the 
> > > > meetings and participate in the discussion.
> > > > 
> > > > - The inner working of constituencies are, in some cases, 
> > > opaque, we 
> > > > would therefore have to take someone's word for it.  And
> > while the 
> > > > constituency could complain afterwards, the vote would
> > already be 
> > > > complete.
> > > > 
> > > > - It doesn't account for the votes of nomcom appointees
> > who 
> > > might miss 
> > > > a meeting.
> > > > 
> > > > I would be more in favor of reviewing the proxy voting 
> > > provisions as 
> > > > part of the GNSO reform, or assuming the GSNO gets to make
> > 
> > > some of its 
> > > > own rules after the reform, consider a new proxy policy at
> > 
> > > that point.
> > > > 
> > > > a.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 11 jul 2007, at 16.03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I fully understand the reason for eliminating proxy
> > voting
> > > > on the
> > > > > Council and support it, but I would like to propose the
> > > > following
> > > > > for consideration by the Council.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems to me that no constituency should be denied any
> > of
> > > > their
> > > > > votes in cases where the constituency as a whole has
> > taken a
> > > >  
> > > > > position on an issue and one of their Council
> > > > representatives
> > > > > cannot participate in a meeting.  In such a case, it
> > seems 
> > > > > reasonable to allow any one constituency representative
> > to
> > > > case all
> > > > > the votes for the constituency provided an officer of
> > the 
> > > > > constituency confirms that the vote indeed reflects the
> > > > wishes of
> > > > > the full consituency as determined through the
> > > > constituencies
> > > > > established processes.  As I envision this, it would
> > only
> > > > apply in
> > > > > cases where a vote was announced in advance, a
> > constituency
> > > > 
> > > > > considered the choices and the constituency as a whole
> > > > provided
> > > > > direction to its reps regarding how to vote; otherwise,
> > we
> > > > would
> > > > > simply be back to proxy voting as previously used.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not suggesting this because of any recent or
> > > > anticiapted issue
> > > > > but rather think that it is a procedure we should define
> > > > before we
> > > > > encounter such a situation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not suggesting this as an agenda item for tomorrows
> > > > meeting
> > > > > but simply one for list discussion.  Depending on the
> > > > discussion
> > > > > that follows, we could put this item on a future agenda.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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."
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>