Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] RE: Proposed agenda and updated draft charter for review

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/21/13 7:45 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> I do not support adding the topic of GNSO structure for several reasons:

+42. It could take us in several time consuming but wicked attractive
directions:

o Do we revisit and update "in Stakeholder notation" the findings
presented at the Paris meeting, that some the votes of some
Constituencies correlate highly with the motions of another
Constituency? The reform was supposed to fix that, or at least
institutionalize it in less harmful form.

o Does this interest in the adequacy of representation extend to other
possibly "rotten boroughs"? It doesn't take much to find an AC or SO
other than the GNSO with adequacy of representation issues.

o It risks placing the only venue for the _stake-holders_ in the
_multi-stake-holder_model_ so dear to Ira and his successors in
Commerce, which is vastly larger than the DNSO Constituencies formed
in 1999 and their successor GNSO Stakeholders, in addressing
_implementation_ within the GNSO, where it currently is _not_.

o And it opens the way for another lap around the ByLaws reform course.

A fairly high tariff for a drafting group to impose on the follow-on
working group.

Eric