[council] Some initial thoughts on Working Groups
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Thu Mar 6 16:39:28 UTC 2008
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for reading and commenting so quickly.
Some quick responses.
On 6 Mar 2008, at 11:06, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> I definitely think that having a Council liaison on every WG is a good
> idea and think that where possible two liaisons may be good,
> especially
> in WGs that may last for a considerable length of time, thereby
> providing a backup liaison.
I agree. the reason I worded it as I did "at least one" is that there
may be cases where the scpe is narow enough or the milestones short
enough that this may not be necessary. As I have probably made clear
various times in the past I am personally very much in favor of co-
chaired leadership for precisely the reaon you give. And for the
additional reason that having co-chairs gives chairs greater latitude
in participation as it allows for one co-chair to stand aside on an
issue he or she cares about, leaving the rough consensus call to the
other co-chair.
> think there are a couple of words missing in the following in the
> first paragraph after the list of bullets on page 2: "These rules also
> do specify any guidelines for the relationship between the GNSO, the
> GNSO Council and the WGs. As it stands, these rules may not a
> sufficient
> recipe for a WG as it can leave a WG either floundering without
> recourse
> or subject it to undue influence from the GNSO council." Is there a
> 'not' missing in the first sentence and a 'be' missing in the second
> sentence?
Yes. Thank you.
Corrected version attached.
a.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: working-groups-01.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 45563 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20080306/78d2c9bb/working-groups-01.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
More information about the council
mailing list