Personal statement on "to have or not to have board approved constituencies"
- To: gnso-stakeholder-charters@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Personal statement on "to have or not to have board approved constituencies"
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:22:02 -0400
To the Board,
I note with interest that the Contracted House SGs are proposing the
effective abolition of constituencies within their respective
Stakeholder Group charters.
While I have never been, and still am not, in favor of abolishing
constituencies, I note that a similar proposal from the NCSG has been
denied and been the target of a re-write of its charter by the Policy
Staff. Of course I cannot know the intentions of the Structural
Improvements Committee, and the Board, with regard to approving the
implicit abolition of constituencies within Contracted Parties
Stakeholder Groups. I do believe, however, that the original NCSG
proposal, sans board approved constituencies, should get the same
consideration that the SGs of the Contracted Parties House get on this
In support of this, I can only argue that parity is supposed to be a
key principle among the Stakeholder groups and between the Houses.
Any top-down Board or Policy Staff decsion that unbalances that parity
runs counter to the principles of the GNSO restructuring effort and
must be avoided.
In terms of the existence of constituencies, if 3 SGs want them
abolished, then that is a bottom-up viewpoint that should be
considered. My concern is that it be considered equally for all the
Stakeholder Groups that requested it.
Nominating Committee appointee to the GNSO Council (2005-2009)
Not a member of any constituency.