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

["Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf" <jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bellow

 

Jaime Wagner

 <mailto:jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> jaime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Direto (51) 3219-5955  Cel (51) 8126-0916

Geral  (51) 3233-3551  DDG: 0800-703-6366

 <http://www.powerself.com.br/> www.powerself.com.br

 

De: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 31 de março de 2011 08:16
Para: Jaime Wagner - PowerSelf
Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'; gnso-ccwg-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Assunto: Re: RES: RES: [gnso-ccwg-dt] FW: [council] Cross community working
groups

 

 

 

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?  

 

I think that the NCPH houses many differing interests that are not obvious
and sometimes may be confusing. So, only one liaison from that side would
not suffice – 2 would be required. But then the CPH would argue for two from
its side, in the name of balance, although its  interests are more uniform
and clear cut. So, at least four would be required. 

 

And are you therefore arguing for a single liaison, or none?

 

No, I was arguing for CCWG. Despite considering that the effectiveness of
the liaison mechanism is much dependent on the individual performance of the
liaison person, it’s better than nothing.

My preference as to the liaison question: 1) Four liaisons as above; 2) Two
liaisons, one of each house; 2) One single liaison. But the existence of a
liaison or many does not preclude the CCWG which I think is a more effective
mechanism to foster understanding (I’m not saying agreement).

 

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.

 

Maybe it’s my poor english and not your early Alzheimer. Nevertheless, I
understood that GAC has reservations about an informal mechanism and
individual contributions without formal consultation.

BTW, I agree with Suzanne when she complained of the amount of e-mails in
the Rec6 CCWG list. I myself could not cope with the volume and lost track.
But I saw the participation of GAC members and valued it as fundamental in
that group. So, my position is to favor informal, individual GAC member
participation in CCWGs, with the consideration that they are not
representing formal positions of their countries but bringing an informed
and legitimate point of view. Moreover, the same applies to GNSO
participants in these CCWGs.