[bc-gnso] Working Group Guidelines -- withdrawing the draft
randruff at rnapartners.com
Fri Mar 19 14:27:17 UTC 2010
Don't be too quick to withdraw this document. Others may still want to
weigh in on this matter before the deadline...
My position on the three 'contentious' elements that have been raised are as
(1) I agree that the candidates for Chair of a WG be as broad as possible.
I understand the concerns about capture, but feel that with 'Chair training'
that will be part of the toolkit, this issue is of lesser concern.
(2) I agree that Liaisons should be able to act fully in the WG's, but in
like manner as they do not vote at the Board level, perhaps we can apply the
same rule here?
(3) Consistent participation -- irrespective as to how people participate --
is critical to Working Groups. Therefore, I fully support the notion that
if a participant cannot fully engage, they should step back. My experience
working on review teams is that many may sign up, but few actually
contribute, and fewer still show up for all the calls/meetings. So I
support the concept of 'consistent participation'.
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:46 PM
To: Mike O'Connor
Cc: bc - GNSO list
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Working Group Guidelines -- withdrawing the draft
given the lateness of the hour (2 days before the filing deadline) and the
depth of disagreements expressed about the draft, i am withdrawing it and
will submit it as a personal comment rather than that of the BC.
i'm disappointed that we couldn't have had this discussion several weeks
ago. i think we need to tune up our policy-development process so that we
avoid this kind of train wreck in the future.
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
More information about the Bc-gnso