Re: [ispcp] Response to GNSO Ops team request for comment

["Anthony Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree that this would not be a good idea.

Tony Harris
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tony Holmes 
  To: ispcp@xxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 10:07 AM
  Subject: [ispcp] Response to GNSO Ops team request for comment


  All

  The GNSO Reform Operations Team that both Wolf-Ulrich and I participate in, recently circulated a request for comments on a proposal that was being discussed within that group on restructuring the GNSO into two separate streams. One dealing with policy issues the other administration. As there was no consensus within the Ops team on this approach  they specifically posed the following question:

  "Do you think that the establishment of a new, additional body to address specific responsibilities - as described herein - would better serve the stakeholder groups that make up the GNSO, or not"

  Those of you who were present at the ISPCP meeting in Sydney will recall that this issue was discussed and there was no support, basically because it was seen as adding more bureaucracy and overhead.

  My question to you is should we submit a response from the Constituency stating that?

  This action was supported during the Sydney meeting but as time has passed I thought I would check once more to see if there is any opposition to this. If we are to respond I would need to do that early next week, so if you are opposed to that action, please reply promptly.

  Regards

  Tony