Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal?
ah! a puzzle! i love those. i agree -- rules with no mechanism to change the rules seems like a flaw. but i think there's a key distinction to be made as to who does the rule-changing. should a committee like ours have that job, or should a subcommittee of the GNSO have that job? after all, the charter of the GNSO Council is to "manage the policy making process" or some such. so doesn't that put ongoing rules-changes in their remit? in either case, it seems to me that's a really important decision that needs to be made before we finish working through the detailed revisions of the charter. one option would be for us to continue under the narrow (time-limited, deliverables-defined) charter approach. under that scenario, somebody could raise the lack of ongoing rule-changing capability as a flaw in the process that has been introduced. we could use our normal process to develop suggestions about how ongoing rules changes get made by the Council after we're done. another option would be for us to declare ourselves that ongoing rules-changing body by revising our charter to say so, and get the Council to evaluate our idea. is this making sense to people, or have i launched off into another journey into dreamland? mikey On Jun 7, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It is a historical footnote that the GNSO operated in practice for quite a > while under the "DNSO" operating procedures. This happened because there > was not a mechanism to review and update these procedures, so they literally > never got updated even when the GNSO formally and officially replaced the > DNSO. As part of the GNSO improvements process, it was quite urgent to > address this matter by creating operating procedures for the GNSO to, well, > operate by. We would looked to the DNSO operating procedures as a starting > point but obviously were quite outdated in many respects and this was the > project that fell under a Working Group called the GCOT. For history not to > repeat itself, it was realized a mechanism for reviewing and updating > operating procedures through the course of time was needed, producing the > effect of the new GNSO Operating Procedures being a living document. > Towards this objective, the SCI serves the functional role of being a > mechanism where updates to operating procedures can be reviewed on as needed > basis through the course of time. > > Ray > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:17 PM > To: gnso-improvem-impl-sc@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Charter revision -- what is our goal? > > 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.) > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|