Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] On the Role of a WG Chair vs. Council Liaison

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Amr,

I think J. Scott was referring to the role the liaison has in the process to 
challenge a designation as described in section 3.6:


If several participants in a WG disagree with the designation given to a 
position by the Chair or any other consensus call, they may follow these steps 
sequentially:

1. Send email to the Chair, copying the WG explaining why the decision is 
believed to be in error.

2. If the Chair still disagrees with the complainants, the Chair will forward 
the appeal to the CO liaison(s). The Chair must explain his or her reasoning in 
the response to the complainants and in the submission to the liaison. If the 
liaison(s) supports the Chair's position, the liaison(s) will provide their 
response to the complainants. The liaison(s) must explain their reasoning in 
the response. If the CO liaison disagrees with the Chair, the liaison will 
forward the appeal to the CO. Should the complainants disagree with the liaison 
support of the Chair's determination, the complainants may appeal to the Chair 
of the CO or their designated representative. If the CO agrees with the 
complainants' position, the CO should recommend remedial action to the Chair.

3. In the event of any appeal, the CO will attach a statement of the appeal to 
the WG and/or Board report. This statement should include all of the 
documentation from all steps in the appeals process and should include a 
statement from the CO.


I think a similar process is foreseen here, but in the case of an IRT there 
would not be a chair, but GDD staff would lead the meetings / discussions.


Best regards,


Marika

From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday 26 November 2014 22:37
To: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] On the Role of a WG Chair vs. Council Liaison

Hi J. Scott and all,

Looking over the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, specifically sections 2.1.4.2, 
2.2.1 and 2.2.4, it seems to me that the function described in section V(E) of 
the IRT Operating Principles is a lot more consistent with what a working group 
chair should be doing, and not what a council liaison's role is.

Apart from a liaison's duty to facilitate dialogue between a working group and 
the council, the liaison is expected to assist "the Chair as required with 
his/her knowledge of WG processes and practices; taking back to the CO 
(chartering organisation) any questions or queries the WG might have in 
relation to its charter and mission; and, assisting or intervening when the WG 
faces challenges or problems." This duty is, however, done under the assumption 
that there is a working group chair present who is actually responsible for 
management of the process (not the council liaison), including presiding over 
discussions and holding consensus calls.

Like I said on the call, I am not adamantly against the IRT council liaison 
performing the tasks outlined in this IRT operating principle, but would 
certainly feel that a member of the IRT selected by the IRT members would be 
more suitable. It was not my intent to belabour this opinion, but since the 
GNSO working group guidelines are being used as a reference for this decision, 
then I think that would support the selection of an IRT member rather than a 
council liaison serving in this capacity.

Thanks.

Amr