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

[Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The pilot is 3 early engagements long.............as soon as we have the
experience of those 3 the pilot is dead.

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
ISOC Costa Rica Chapter
skype carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176  (New  Phone number!!!!)
________
Apartado 1571-1000
COSTA RICA

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> As long as the pilot is continuing, sure, I am happy for Mason to stay
> in the role.  That is not my issue and I misundertood the motion as
> implying an approval of continuing the program.  I forget, does the
> pilot have a sunset date when it ceases to be a pilot and become a
> steady state practice? Or is nothing so permanent as a temporary
> solution, i.e. the pilot is permanent?
>
> And if Mason is being able to help untangle at least a few issues that
> is a really good thing to hear.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 05-Jun-15 10:56, Volker Greimann wrote:
> >
> > Avri,
> >
> > you raise interesting questions, and I hope we will be able to discuss
> > them here on list and at our next meeting. As Carlos pointed out, this
> > is intended purely to maintain the liaison function, which has served
> > us and the GAC by allowing Mason to convey our thinking to the GAC and
> > the other way round. As Phil pointed out, direct benefits were seen
> > also in the IGO WG.
> >
> > Is it enough to warrant the continuation? I believe it is, but you are
> > right that we should have this discussion. After all, an informed
> > approval is better than just waiving it through.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Volker
> >
> >
> > Am 05.06.2015 um 15:37 schrieb Avri Doria:
> >> 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
> >>
> >
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>