RE: [gnso-consensus-wg] Theoretical options

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we need to separate possible expertise of NomCom reps from the
use of experts in PDPs.  I believe both are relevant.

Regardless of how the NomCom review comes out and no matter what
recommendations we might make as part of or GNSO structure work with
regard to GNSO NomCom rep qualifications, I think that it would still be
appropriate for us to communicate to the NomCom areas of expertise that
would be useful.  The NomCom could then factor that information into
their selection process along with other parameters.  But I see no
reason why NomCom reps with certain areas of expertise should be
non-voting members; all Councelors have certain areas of expertise and
that hopefully helps us collaboratively make better decisions.

The NomCom process for appointing representatives to the GNSO takes much
too much time for it to be an effective way of providing experts for
PDPs. 

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Philip Sheppard
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 5:55 AM
> To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] Theoretical options
> 
> 
> 
> One issue we have not addressed is the nomcom review and a 
> change of role to experts not adjudicators.
> 
> If nomcom delegates were experts (on for example consumer 
> law, competition, consumer protection etc, etc) they could 
> still be on Council but be non-voting.
> 
> The challenge is to define the role not the number.
> 
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
>