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