RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q4; In Section 3.1: Question of constituency role
- To: "avri@xxxxxxx" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q4; In Section 3.1: Question of constituency role
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 06:38:13 -0400
I believe this was a question asked by a staff member, not by any stakeholders.
My answer, which is similar to the one provided on the call by someone whose
name I do not know, is VOICE. In the NCSG charter, for example, Constituencies
get a seat on the policy committee, and their statements on a policy issue must
be included in any submissions of SG statements on that issue. They also can
propose that WGs be formed and the Council reps must follow those
recommendations once a certain threshold is reached.
I note that the Board Governance Committee was interested in new constituencies
ONLY insofar as they expanded representation, participation and the diversity
of voices. It was not interested in new constituencies as an end in themselves
(although some staff members seem to have erroneously interpreted it that).
Detaching constituencies from Council seats actually makes it much easier to
form new constituencies, and thus to get more diversity of voices.
> -----Original Message-----
> A pending discussion was: what does it mean to be a constituency if a
> constituency does not have an automatic seat on the council? In the
> meeting it was suggested that constituencies provided an organized way
> for people with similar concerns to participate in the process and in
> the SGs.
> Does this need to be described somewhere in the By-Laws?
> The question also remains on whether any considerations are required
> within the By-Laws on the relationship between Constituencies and the
> Stakeholder groups in order to implement the Board's recommendations for
> increased participation and representation.