RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q4; In Section 3.1: Question of constituency role
- To: "Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q4; In Section 3.1: Question of constituency role
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 21:04:37 -0400
As is quite clear, a guaranteed seat per constituency, the desire to
increase the number of constituencies (or at least points of view)
and a fixed number of council seats cannot call coexist.
The staff-proposed Bylaw revisions acknowledged this and made it a
(deferred) Board responsibility to resolve.
Assuming the Board is going to step up to its responsibilities and
only accept a SG charter if it believes that the charter WILL
encourage the new and diverse players to participate in the GNSO, I
don't see any reason to enshrine this interim rule (every
Constituency must get a seat) in the Bylaws.
On the other hand, if there IS a feeling among Board members that the
charters presented do not meet the target of encouraging new
participation, and yet are not willing to reject them based on these
grounds, perhaps the rule is needed.
I far prefer the former alternative.
At 07/05/2009 12:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> policy staff does have the ability to bring up issues and ask questions
> if they believe it will help us take all the issues into consideration.
> Another reason for considering the question worthwhile might be that
All very well and good, Avri, but I provided a pretty comprehensive
answer to the question in my initial message. About as long as your
response above I reproduce it below in case you did not read it. ;-)
> > y 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.