Re: [gnso-policyimpl-dt] For final review - proposed WG Charter

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Colleagues,

First, apologies for missing yesterday's call, it was
first-day-of-summer-school for my profoundly autistic son, and call
time is noon my time, when I pick him up, and he had a good day and
wanted to go look for vhs tapes at the local St. Vinnies (thrift), so
I'd a non-maskable interrupt.

Second, the "if necessary" clause stands out like a red flag. It
offers an answer of "none" to the "circumstances" question, however
the dependent clause ends.

Third, as we know, the Board occasionally offers "LM"* questions with
response expectations shorter than the GNSO's motion->constituencies
cycle allows, leaving the Council with no response possible except
from the vote of the Councilors, rather than the votes or other
decision making means of the constituencies.

So a "none" answer (see para 2, above) means time doesn't matter. As
this seems absurd (the Board asking a question for which no party is
capable of responding before the question is moot), time could be a
bit more explicit in the question.

Eric

* "LM" are midway between "I" for Implementation and "P" for Policy.