RE: QuQRE: [gnso-osc-ops] GNSO "kite" and Sydney

["Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Ron.

 

Ok, not trying to be difficult here but councilors are not to ?work on
policy development?.  They are to administratively manage policy development
which is different than administratively managing the non-policy affairs of
the SO i.e. the separation of ?administrative? duties we are calling
attention to as a high level principle.  Then it becomes: what are these
administrative duties that require separation (policy management vs.
non-policy management)?   Where I am hearing from other members of our Work
Team that we have not delineated this well enough to be identifying the
number of additional people ? call them volunteers ? this will require under
the new format.  We should think about the term ?Administrative Volunteer?
because council members are to be administrators too, just different
administrative tasks (policy management vs. non-policy management) ? the
separation of administrative duties we are calling attention to.  We all
agree that the more council members can focus their time and effort on being
the manager of policy development vs. managing non-policy administrative
tasks of the SO, the better it can serve its intended role.  In terms of our
work, as a high level principle that you have brought attention to for us, I
find this to be both useful and consistent.

 

So here?s another question for you:  Can the ?Administrative Volunteer? be a
member of the Ex Comm?

 

I like the idea of identifying the high level principle of ?separation of
duties?, I have from the beginning.  I like offering the idea of calling for
volunteers from the stakeholder groups as our proposed method to assist with
the non-policy related administrative duties of the SO.  I like the idea of
identifying what these non-policy administrative duties are in support of
our thought that this will enable the council to be more efficient and
focused as the manager of policy development as recommended by the BGC.  I
think we have consensus within our Work Team for each of these points.  But
I am not sure we need to go any farther than this because when we do, we
have found ourselves bogged down on ?structure? instead of process, beyond
nomenclature.

 

Ray

 

  _____  

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:07 AM
To: 'Ray Fassett'; 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: RE: QuQRE: [gnso-osc-ops] GNSO "kite" and Sydney

 

Ray,

 

The answer is ?no?.  They are two different bodies, each with their own
expertise.  Administrators are not councilors; councilors, as detailed in
the text of the kite, work on policy development around and in support of
the various Working Groups (just as you seek Chuck?s council now).   

 

That said, you do bring something to light which we can correct and that is
the nomenclature: ?Administration? Elected Rep could be better named
?Administration Volunteer?.  That adds clarity and removes issues such as
?representativeness? that has arisen as a thorny issue.

 

We can further refine this on the call shortly.

 

Kind regards,

 

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 

 

  _____  

From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 2009-06-09 15:38
To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: RE: QuQRE: [gnso-osc-ops] GNSO "kite" and Sydney

 

Ron, per the org chart, I see a ?yes? or ?no? question of:  Are the
additional members for organizational administrative duties intended to be
recognized as members of the GNSO Council?  If the answer to this question
is ?yes?, is it not therefore true that members of the GNSO Council must
consist of two groups?  

 

If the answer is ?no?, that the additional members are not to be recognized
as members of the GNSO Council, does the org chart accurately depict this?

 

My intention is not to dramatically alter the kite proposal?s initial
position.  It is to capture what the org chart is illustrating this position
to be, our purpose for including it.  Perhaps your response to my question
above will assist in my understanding.

 

 



 

  _____  

From: Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 12:53 PM
To: 'Ray Fassett'; 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: QuQRE: [gnso-osc-ops] GNSO "kite" and Sydney

 

Ray,

 

Please find my comments in red below.  

 

Regarding the comments you received on the RoP from Julie and Rob it would
be helpful if the rest of the work team had access to that information as
well.  I am still unsure as to who is doing what; moveover, how work done by
other work teams will impact the work we are undertaking.

 

Regarding our face-to-face meeting in Sydney, as noted in my previous post
(below), can you advise whether our meeting is indeed being extended (or
not) so that we can all make our other meeting plans accordingly.

 

Thank you.

 

Kind regards,

 

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 

 

  _____  

From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 2009-06-09 00:28
To: 'Ron Andruff'; 'GNSO Ops Work Team'
Subject: 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. Diversity is
critical in policy development; but with regard to administrative tasks the
important issue is getting the task done, not where the individuals on the
team come from.  It may be asking too much to confirm diversity on the admin
team.

 

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. Chuck is missing the point.  We are NOT
sending the kite to the reps, we are sending it to the constituency members.
We need community feedback; not councilor feedback.  In this regard, perhaps
we can have staff set up an email address for comments to the work team so
that all can monitor the responses as they come in.

 

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. From the start of this dialogue, I have tried to clarify
that there is a clear difference between ?policy councilors? and
?administration managers? ? and that both have different and separate skill
sets and tasks.  If I read your amendment correctly (This document
identifies two primary sets of duties for GNSO Council members) you are
dramatically altering the kite proposal from this initial position.  Your
amendment calls for splitting the GNSO Council into two groups?  Is that
your intention?   

 

Regarding question 4: The kite was intended to ask one question, i.e., does
this idea make sense to you or not?  Questions 2 and 3 were intended simply
to get a deeper understanding of the ?yes? or ?no? question, so that we
could have a better read.  The idea was to ask a ?closed? question.  A
closed question being one that delivers a single answer.  Question 4 is, in
my view, far too ?open?, and while it may or may not provide a broad array
of speculative answers, it will do little to give the work team the type of
guidance it needs, while turning the kite into a broader based document than
it was intended to do.  I am concerned that we are all losing sight of the
intended goal as the weeks roll by?

 

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