RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
- To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] outstanding issues
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:08:11 -0400
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 09:20 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> There is also nothing to stop us rotating the NomCom reps
> through each of the houses and the floating spot, given that
> they have two year terms.[Gomes, Chuck] In my opinion, this
> complicates the learning curve for the NomCom appointees.
i don't understand this at all.
first, in terms of issues that are general in terms of GTLDs, contracts,
picket fences, history of policy decsions ... , the knowledge base
should be relatively invariant regardless of the house.
sure there will be house specific consideration but these are above the
basic knowledge set one needs to have to be a useful and productive
council member. when it come to these consideration, i see two
if the SGs are just paper constructs then it means nothing to be in one
house versus the other except for voting.
on the other hand, if the SGs have any sort of separate debates on the
issues while figuring out how to decide on some issue, then having the
NCA change house at midterm would actually help both their learning
curve and the learning curve of the other members of the house as they
would bring in considerations that could only be learned in the other
and if we assume that productive and valuable NCAs will
possibly/hopefully be renewed, for the apex of the curve is somewhere
between .5 - 1.5 years (depending on the time spent and inclinations of
the NCA), then when they approach their second rotation they will be in
the long tail of the curve.