Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Your feedback requested: Section 2.2. Working Group Member Roles and Responsibilities

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

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

> From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines
> 
> Section 2.2. Working Group Member Roles and Responsibilities
> 
> The following is a description of standard WG roles. Typically the Charter 
> will outline the desired qualities and skills a WG Chair should possess, the 
> role and name of the official liaison to the Chartering Organization, and any 
> key Staff or other experts assigned to the WG. Any additional roles that are 
> not included here should be listed in the WG Charter, including a description 
> and minimal set of functions / duties to the extent that the chartering 
> organization might wish to specify them.
> 
> A suggested procedure to conduct elections can be: 
> 
> ·     Nominations or self-nominations;
> 
> ·     Statements of qualifications from candidates
> 
> ·     Vote by simple majority;
> 
> ·     Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering 
> Organization of results of actions. 
> 
> Comments
> 
> MO: Replace this sentence In section 2.2: “Statements of qualifications from 
> candidates” with: “Statements of qualifications from candidates that 
> describes their ability to fulfill the role (described in Section 2.2) and 
> meet the expectations of the job (described Section 6.1.3)”

i think the candidate should put out any statement they want and the WG should 
decide on whether it is enough.  Yes, it is  reasonable that they answer his, 
but how about answering why they want it, and do they have the time, and do 
they have ulterior motives and have the been successful in previous ventures 
like this  and what did they learn about themselves in previous faliures and do 
they understand the subject matter, etc... The list of question people might 
have is endless.  I recommend we  let a candidate for chair be judged by what 
statement she may make.

> 
> RySG: While Paragraph 2.2 sets out the responsibilities and functions of the 
> typical Working Group roles, the RySG suggests that it may be helpful if the 
> Guidelines go further and provide some minimal criteria around the necessary 
> skills and qualities for the Chair, Vice Chairs etc. In particular, since the 
> CO has to approve the Chair, it would be helpful if the CO was able to base 
> its approval decision on some specific criteria.

We discussed this. Every groups is different and the list of skills is so 
general as to be meaningless.

> 
> GD: Sections 2.2 and 2.3 further expand the definition of these roles, and 
> outline the nature of sub-teams.  We recommend that the PPSC WG-WT provide 
> some guidance that requires working group leaders and sub-team members be 
> familiar or have subject matter expertise in the areas to be addressed by the 
> working group and/or sub-team.
> 

Who is to judge the level of expertise of others.  Will we be giving tests.  
and who will have the authority to bar the clueless from participating?  I 
think this is yet another rat hole.

a.