Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Your feedback requested: Section 2.2. Liaison

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks for doing it this way.

I find it easier to either mark up a wiki or to use email like this.

i find that when i have to comment on a word file, the cut and paste i need to 
do to produce the emil makes it a much more labor intense effort.  And if i try 
to edit the word file i end up acting like an editor and do more then i really 
want to do - so it takes longer.


On 22 Apr 2010, at 05:17, Marika Konings wrote:

> From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines
> 
> Section 2.2. Liaison
> 
> ·     Liaison - A Member of the Chartering Organization (CO) can be appointed 
> to serve as a Liaison to the Working Group. The role of the Liaison consists 
> of reporting to the CO on a regular basis on the progress of the Working 
> Group; assisting the Chair as required with his/her knowledge of WG processes 
> and practices; taking back to the CO 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. The liaison is expected to play a 
> neutral role, monitor the discussions of the Working Group and assist and 
> inform the Chair and the WG as required. 
> 
> Comments
> 
> CG: The ‘Liaison’ bullet says, “The liaison is expected to play a neutral 
> role . . . ” It might be better to say, “The liaison is expected to play a 
> neutral role in communicating information from the WG to the CO and vice 
> versa . . .” Because of the challenge of getting volunteers, it probably can 
> be expected that the Liaison will have to wear more than one hat, one as 
> Liaison and one as representative of her/his organization (e.g., SG or 
> Constituency). In cases where the Liaison wears more than one hat, she/he 
> should always be clear about which hat is being worn.

This is easier said then done.

While I understand the need and desire to argue ones point, i think that the 
liaison should largely avoid doing so.  I think, e.g. that the liaison for a 
group should never be one who is the champion for one point of view.  As a 
member of the council the liaison has a greater amount of power in the 
discussion and can 'bully' the less active newer members of the group.  
Especially when the liaison belong to a Stakeholder group I think that they 
should focus on listening as observing and helping to find way to consensus as 
opposed to acting as a member representing a side in the discussion.  but even 
as a NCA, I think it is important to keep that role as neutral as possible.

If someone is arguing against a member of the council, or even its chair, with 
great fervor, there is always the fear that this person may be able to use 
their influence against you in another issue.  Once you know the people and 
know they are not likely to behave that way people one can relax but new 
participants can't be expected to have this knowledge.

> 
> RySG: The draft Guidelines state that “the liaison is expected to play a 
> neutral role . . .” It may be preferable to state that “the liaison is 
> expected to play a neutral role in communicating information from the Working 
> Group to the CO and vice versa . .”

Same comment as above.  I am strongly against this change.

> 
> The RySG is of the opinion that it may prove challenging to recruit a 
> volunteer Liaison who is not also representing a Constituency or SG. 
> Therefore, the Guidelines should distinguish between the different hats that 
> a Liaison could be wearing at any one time and notwithstanding this ability 
> to wear multiple hats throughout the process, the Liaison should always be 
> clear about which views are being represented.

thee are multiple representatives of the SGs.  they should be able to have one 
act neutrlly while the others act in the interest of the SG.


> 
> MO: 7) Combine, or at least align, these sections (6.1.4 and 2.2) regarding 
> the role of liaison.  They are somewhat repetitive and inconsistent.

why not.

> 
> 8) Insert the following language fragment into the appropriate section of the 
> Guideline:
> 
> “Chartering Organization will take care to select a Liaison who will play a 
> neutral role in the work of the Working Group, preferably a member who has an 
> open mind regarding policy positions that will be addressed.  Members of the 
> Working group can request, through the Chair, that a Liaison be replaced if 
> they determine that the Liaison is allowing positions on issues to impinge on 
> their ability to fulfill the role in a neutral way.” 

sounds good to me.