Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q2 and names - a possible approach
- To: gnso-restruc-dt@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-restruc-dt] Q2 and names - a possible approach
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 17:35:30 -0400
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:
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.