Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q2 and names - a possible approach

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I cannot attend Monday's meeting. After a quick read, this sounds 
fine to me.  Alan
At 24/05/2009 12:52 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am wondering whether there is acceptance for the following in this
> DT as a way forward on this question:
>
> - that a house can determine its own name with the approval of both
> SGs in that house.
> - that a SG group can determine its own name and that this should be
> part of its board approved charter.
> - that a constituency can determine its own name and it  should part
> of its board approved charter.
> - that no house, SG or constituency  gets to determine the name of
> another house, SG or constituency.
>
> The Board already determined the split between the houses and the
> stakeholder groups, so, as long as the name does not contradict the
> split, this should not be an issue for by-laws.
>
> In general I also personally advocate a general rule to be followed in
> all matters of "where is X decided?" and that is of subsidiarity in
> that, except for global issues like PDP and Contractual conditions,
> all decisions are made at the lowest unit of organization in the
> bottom up chain.  This includes things like names, methods by which
> houses elect their council vice-chairs, how SG elect their council
> members, etc... With the Board always maintaining its role/ 
> responsibility of advice and consent.
>
> a.