[bc-gnso] GCOT request for input from CBUC members
- To: "BC gnso" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [bc-gnso] GCOT request for input from CBUC members
- From: "BC Secretariat" <secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:33:59 +0200
Forwarded on behalf of Marilyn Cade
My appreciation to the GCOT for the opportunity to comment on the
establishment of a separate Administrative team. My response is that it is
very much an improvement to the GNSO to separate the Policy Council and its
work from the Administrative functions, as proposed. I will make a couple
of proposed changes, however, in the team's proposal. Since this was
distributed via the constituencies, I have cc'd the BC list as FYI.
I think that there are very good ideas in this proposal by the GCOT.
Let me try to describe the area where I would propose a change. On page 4,
under Executive Committee, I propose a change to the role of the Executive
Committee. First, think of this administrative management group as a 'team'.
So that group will have a chair, which they elect. Then, it is appropriate
to have the Policy Chair, [or Vice Chair ]and one more rep sit on the
Coordinating Team to ensure that there is reflection of the Policy Council's
priorities, but there is not a need to have such a formalized structure that
creates a second layer on top of the Administrative Coordinating Team.
Thus, I could see that we could strike the new Executive Committee of 5
people. This will be perceived by many as creating too much layering. Keep
this simple. Divide the work as proposed. Have a separate Administrative
team, put the Policy chair/and one more policy rep on it. The two chairs
then have separate functions. There may be instances when both chairs should
participate in certain events, or meetings, when both administrative
management and policy development/management are being discussed. I am sure
that can happen in a cohesive and collegial manner.
So, "yes" to the new Administrative Group, but cut out the 'supra chair' and
cut out the executive committee idea of 5 people.
The constituencies/groups should all be largely self governing, and will
hopefully have independent management structures of their own that are
seprate from their elected policy councilors.
Otherwise, I want to applaud the work of the group in the write up of this
document. It is well thought out, and succinct in how it describes what is a
significant change, but one that can improve the neutral administrative
functioning of the GNSO, while also enabling the dedication of time and
focus on the important policy development activities.