[council] FW: SO-AC-SG HIGH INTEREST TOPIC SESSION @ ICANN 51 in Los Angeles - A Reminder
avri at acm.org
Thu Aug 28 07:55:42 UTC 2014
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I tend to see the council as the aggregation point for the various SGs
groups, and the SGs as aggregation point for the various constituencies
and interest groups. Seems appropriate to me that the Council should
collect, do the synthesis and pass things on.
After all the council is the representative of the GNSO and its chair
is the chair of he GNSO. Who better to bring things together than our
chair. Sometimes we worry about the loss of reputation of the GNSO
and its council. Perhaps the effort to minimize it in the service of
the constituencies is part of the issue. And I do not mean to say it
is a hierarchy, but rather a progressive aggregation, with each entity
responsible to the representative of the groups it contains (except,
of course, for the Board which claims not to be composed of
If we don't use the council as an aggregation point, what we seem to
say is that the task of aggregation and recommendation defaults to the
staff and Board. Personally, I don't think that is optimal.
On 27-Aug-14 18:08, john at crediblecontext.com wrote:
> I have a question.
> In as much as the original request was made of SO and ACs leaders,
> are you not funneling your recommendations through your
> constituency or stakeholder group? I would hate to see the
> suggestions from those groups overlooked because staff looks at the
> GNSO Council as some sort of hierarchical filter.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the council