Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] On the Role of a WG Chair vs. Council Liaison
Each IRT certain COULD appoint such a person, but so far, that has not proven to be needed, and if there was indeed a need to take a pulse of the group to oppose a GDD position (or whatever), I have no doubt that it would be done, with or without a formally appointed leader. Alan At 26/11/2014 05:27 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote: Hi,I admit that I hadnt thought of this point in the IRT operating principles resulting from a disagreement between the IRT members and GDD staff. This was not clear to me. I only assumed that an implementation detail was found to somehow lean towards being a policy decision, and that a discussion (before the matter is raised to the council) is being held in which GDD staff may or may not acknowledge that a policy decision is involved.Still , I dont see (in this scenario) why a pre-selected member of the IRT cant manage the discussion and hold a consensus call on wether an implementation detail is policy, or not, and only involve the liaison once a decision has been made to raise the issue to the council. In section 3.6 of the guidelines, this decision has already been made, even if by a small number of WG members and in the absence of a consensus call supporting it.I really dont mean to be difficult on this issue, but only wished to share a view point. If the rest of the working group members still feel it is more appropriate (and consistent with the existing WG guidelines) that the liaison carries out this role, then I wont push it any further and will be happy to support the groups decision.Thanks again. AmrOn Nov 26, 2014, at 10:47 PM, Marika Konings <<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: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 Chairs 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 <<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wednesday 26 November 2014 22:37To: "<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>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 liaisons role is.Apart from a liaisons 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
|