[council] Motion to extend term of GNSO liaison to the GAC

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Fri Jun 5 15:46:10 UTC 2015


As long as the pilot is continuing, sure, I am happy for Mason to stay
in the role.  That is not my issue and I misundertood the motion as
implying an approval of continuing the program.  I forget, does the
pilot have a sunset date when it ceases to be a pilot and become a
steady state practice? Or is nothing so permanent as a temporary
solution, i.e. the pilot is permanent?

And if Mason is being able to help untangle at least a few issues that
is a really good thing to hear.


On 05-Jun-15 10:56, Volker Greimann wrote:
> Avri,
> you raise interesting questions, and I hope we will be able to discuss
> them here on list and at our next meeting. As Carlos pointed out, this
> is intended purely to maintain the liaison function, which has served
> us and the GAC by allowing Mason to convey our thinking to the GAC and
> the other way round. As Phil pointed out, direct benefits were seen
> also in the IGO WG.
> Is it enough to warrant the continuation? I believe it is, but you are
> right that we should have this discussion. After all, an informed
> approval is better than just waiving it through.
> Best,
> Volker
> Am 05.06.2015 um 15:37 schrieb Avri Doria:
>> Hi
>> While I probably agree, I think it would be good to have an analysis of
>> what it achieved before we decide to renew it.
>> To what extent have things changed?  Do we get input earlier? Have we
>> stopped GAC end runs? Or even slowed them down?  Have we made sure that
>> GAC concerns where not only fed in early enough in the various
>> processes, but are taken seriously and avoided end runs?
>> I expect the answer to most of these is a somewhat tepid 'maybe'.
>> So while I am possibly inclined to voting for another year of pilot,
>> since it is a pilot I believe I need a bit more information before
>> deciding.
>> Also is there a similar move in the GAC to renew?  Or will we be
>> renewing it and then asking them to do please do likewise?  Have they
>> invited us to renew?  I know the motions say that both GAC and the GNSO
>> have already agreed to renew, perhaps we should list the resolutions and
>> the statement from GAC that shows this is so.  I think I missed them
>> somehow.
>> thanks
>> avri
>> On 05-Jun-15 08:35, Volker Greimann wrote:
>>> Dear councillors,
>>> as the pilot program for the GNSO liaison to the GAC will be ending
>>> its first term shortly, and the role has shown to be beneficial to
>>> both the council and the GAC, it would be beneficial to extend the
>>> program for FY 16.
>>> I am therefore submitting this motion to extend the term of the
>>> current GNSO liaison, Mason Cole, for your attention and approval.
>>> Mason has already indicated he would be willing to serve another term.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Volker
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the council mailing list