Re: [council] Motion to extend term of GNSO liaison to the GAC

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi

While I probably agree, I think it would be good to have an analysis of
what it achieved before we decide to renew it.

To what extent have things changed?  Do we get input earlier? Have we
stopped GAC end runs? Or even slowed them down?  Have we made sure that
GAC concerns where not only fed in early enough in the various
processes, but are taken seriously and avoided end runs?

I expect the answer to most of these is a somewhat tepid 'maybe'. 

So while I am possibly inclined to voting for another year of pilot,
since it is a pilot I believe I need a bit more information before deciding.

Also is there a similar move in the GAC to renew?  Or will we be
renewing it and then asking them to do please do likewise?  Have they
invited us to renew?  I know the motions say that both GAC and the GNSO
have already agreed to renew, perhaps we should list the resolutions and
the statement from GAC that shows this is so.  I think I missed them
somehow.

thanks

avri



On 05-Jun-15 08:35, Volker Greimann wrote:
>
> Dear councillors,
>
> as the pilot program for the GNSO liaison to the GAC will be ending
> its first term shortly, and the role has shown to be beneficial to
> both the council and the GAC, it would be beneficial to extend the
> program for FY 16.
>
> I am therefore submitting this motion to extend the term of the
> current GNSO liaison, Mason Cole, for your attention and approval.
> Mason has already indicated he would be willing to serve another term.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Volker
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus