Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal?
Hi Mickey, I'll defer to the SCI members concerning a "sunset" clause, but I'll point out that as Avri noted (and I think Marika also pointed out) the SCI is to undertake periodic process reviews on those processes that were initiated in the GNSO improvements process. The charter says, "On a periodic timescale for all recommendations in order to identify possible issues and/or improvements (subject to a clear definition by the SCI on which recommendations should be reviewed)." Those reviews have not occurred nor have they been defined. It may be that language needs to be included that sets a specific timeframe for these process reviews. Best regards, Julie On 6/7/13 4:16 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >thanks Avri and Julie, > >your posts are really helpful. > >what i'm hearing is that the goal is to keep the focus on the original >intent of making sure that there is a way to tidy up flaws in the work of >the prior committees, and not be an ongoing "rules committee" for the >GNSO or the PDP. that helps me a lot in reviewing the new draft, and i >think some of the edits may have missed this mark. i'll churn through >the draft with this in mind. > >one question comes right to mind -- should we sharpen up some "sunset" >language in the charter, to make it clear when we are done? it may be >that the reason there was no language about transitioning the Chair is >because the framers didn't envision this thing lasting very long. > >mikey > > >On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> To add. I approached it as a clean-up. There were some anachronisms >>that need cleaning up based on the closing of OSC and PSC. >> >> Some, those who wanted to change the way decisions were made, might >>have wanted to go beyond clean-up. >> >> I am not sure that anyone was looking to give the SCI more function, >>but it is hard to be sure. Certainly not one of my goals. >> >> I think the SCI works best when it has precious little to do, and I do >>not agree with an SCI that goes looking for work. Except for the >>periodic process reviews, which we have not done yet, I think all the >>rest of SCI work should be driven by the Council or Council chartered >>working groups. >> >> But with questions like that, I am so glad you are on the SCI now >> >> avri >> >> >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 12:11, Mike O'Connor wrote: >> >>> hi all, >>> >>> newbie question here. i thought i'd frame it in a new thread just >>>because i'm getting a bit bewildered by all the topics in the list >>>right now. >>> >>> here's my question: what are we hoping to achieve with the change in >>>the Charter? >>> >>> possible answers -- we're trying to: >>> >>> -- clarify our original charge (in the following areas) in order to >>>accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- expand on our original charge (in the following areas) in order to >>>accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- do both of those things, to accomplish the following goals >>> >>> -- do something else, to accomplish the following goals >>> >>> i'm new, so i'd be delighted to just be pointed to this answer rather >>>than dragging it out of people on the list or the phone. >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> mikey >>> >>> >>> >>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >>>OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >>> >> >> > > >PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|