Re: RES: RES: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FW: [council] Cross community working groups

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jamie

On Mar 31, 2011, at 3:32 AM, Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf wrote:

> During our joint meeting, I commented GAC’s proposal of multiple liaisons 
> from different GNSO constituencies saying that this would not contribute to 
> understanding and in fact could foster misunderstanding.

What exactly would be the problems with multiple?  And are you therefore 
arguing for a single liaison, or none?

Personally, I'd multiple could be useful if we can come to a clear 
understanding of how this works.  SGs or constituencies is another question.

> I suggested that CCWGs could be a better although informal mechanism of early 
> warning. The answer of the US representative was that it was very difficult 
> or even impossible for a GAC member to participate informally, that they were 
> tied to a formal consultation process that would not cope with the pace of a 
> WG.

Isn't that consistent with what Suzanne said in Brussels too, or is my early 
Alzheimer's getting the best of me?  Either way, there have been GAC 
participants, and I wouldn't want to simply take it as given that her view is 
dispositive.

Bill