Personal statement on "to have or not to have board approved constituencies"

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxx>]

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  
issue.
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.
Avri Doria
Nominating Committee appointee to the GNSO Council (2005-2009)
Not a member of any constituency.