[atrt2] Chairs etc.

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Fri Feb 22 16:24:36 UTC 2013


The most recent example I have, was in the Inter Register Transfer Protocol - Part C working group (IRTP-C) in the GNSO.  In that case we evolved into this structure.  Two of use were elected as co-chair: one who know the material inside and out and one who was more of a process person in terms of this subject matter.  In short time the group and the co-chairs realized that what we had was a chair and alternate chair and that is the way the group was run for a year.

Another example was the Vertical Integration (VI) group, which while it never reached consensus did manage to do its work in finite time and did manage to put out a report of the issues that did have consensus and which contained a serious and fairly complete discussion of the issue.


On 22 Feb 2013, at 11:11, David Conrad wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> On Feb 22, 2013, at 7:53 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> With a chair and an alternate chair, you find that the point-person is established and in case of diverging opinion between those with responsibility, you know who the tie breaker is.  But it allows the two to work together and cover each other's tasks.  What most often seems to happen is that they end up dividing responsibilities according to their inclinations and talents.  I beleive it has the advantage that both other arrangenemts offer without the disadvantages.
> This seems like a reasonable approach to me.  Can you point to any examples in which the chair/alt-chair approach is/was used?
> Thanks,
> -drc
> _______________________________________________
> atrt2 mailing list
> atrt2 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2

More information about the atrt2 mailing list