RE: [gnso-osc-ops] GNSO "kite" and Sydney
Ron, my opinion is that we have not provided explicit enough examples to delineate policy administrative duties from organizational administrative duties. This is key because a major crux to the document is a new staffing proposal for each of these administrative needs. At the end of the day, GNSO Council members are to be administrators. They are to administratively manage the policy development process. The point you have introduced is that in order for future Council to members to best do this administrative policy management function with efficiency, all of the other administrative duties of the GNSO need to be supplemented with new people ? at the Council level. This is where the new proposed organizational chart comes in. I have reviewed both Tony?s and Wolf?s comments. There is an overriding question going on ? call it a difference of opinion ? within our work team as to whether there are enough organizational administrative duties to warrant a separate body for this. At the same time, I hear your issue that if this ends being the case in practice, then the separate admin body can be disbanded. There is also the question of geographic diversity requirements. Without over complicating the document to fly the kite, we are being silent to this question ? but we are not all on board that we should be. I have had discussions with Chuck Gomes, Chair of the OSC pertaining to this document and its distribution. He has emphasized to me two things 1) Get our Work Team focused on the Rules of Procedure and 2) sending out a kite is up to us but understand that constituency representatives we are requesting attention from are overloaded. My preference is to work through the Rules of Procedure. By focusing on this, we may be able to better identify the organizational administrative functions we are stating in the document are needed to be staffed. This is my own opinion. With this said, I have attached the kite document containing my edits, capturing thoughts I?ve interpreted from other work team members and from the original feedback we received. I have also added a 4th question. If the team is comfortable with my edits, and we have consensus to distribute this document for the purpose of seeking broader constituency feedback as you encourage, then I will do so. We can decide this on our Wednesday scheduled call leaving enough time to distribute prior to Sydney. I hope that I have articulated my position satisfactorily. Comments welcome to my edits. Ray _____ From: owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 7:29 AM To: gnso-osc-ops@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-osc-ops] GNSO "kite" and Sydney Importance: High Dear Chairman, Dear all, I would like to remind the Chair and team that we are now just 12 days away from the start of the Sydney meeting and we have yet to send out the ?kite? document for the community?s consideration. As we have noted repeatedly on our calls, we NEED community feedback because there are so few of us participating on this work team. Therefore I strongly urge the Chair to finalize the document to his liking and send it out to the current constituencies for their circulation to their members in advance of the Sydney meeting so that we can gain the benefit of face-to-face feedback. On a separate, but related, note, I see that our work team (like all others) is scheduled to meet for 60 minutes on Sunday, June 21st. I think that this is far too little time and therefore would propose that the Chair establish a two hour meeting to give us the time to discuss and debate how to deal with the Rule of Procedure. In this regard, I have understood that Rob and Julie are going through them now to provide us with an understanding of (1) who else ? and in what capacity ? are dealing with this task; and (2) to provide a ?road map? for our work team vis-à-vis the priority of each rule vis-à-vis which ones we take on first, second, etc. In this regard, as we have discussed on our calls, the hope has been that the work done on the SOI/DOI as well as that done on the ?kite? would be folded into the Rules that our work team recommends. Respectfully submitted, RA Ronald N. Andruff RNA Partners, Inc. 220 Fifth Avenue, 20th floor New York, New York 10001 www.rnapartners.com V: +1 212 481 2820 x 11 F: +1 212 481 2859 Attachment:
GNSO_Ops_WT_Proposed_GNSO_Structure_(JHv4RAv3THv1)-RFassett_Edits.doc
|