RE: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Draft Procedures-Section 6
Thanks Ken. I made a few suggested edits and inserted some comments in
the attached file.
I support the suggestions below to put the instructional info in an
annex.
Chuck
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Bour
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 2:38 PM
To: gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Liz Gasster
Subject: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Draft Procedures-Section 6
WPM Team Members:
After our Nairobi session, I went back and listened to the MP3
recording to be sure that I captured all of the comments and
recommendations made. As I intimated on that call, I am recommending
that we bifurcate our deliverable into two sections as follows:
* Section 6 - containing purpose, scope, general
methodology, etc.
* Annex n - containing the detailed mechanics, rating
scale, guidelines, instructions, templates, tools, etc. [Note:
currently, our Annex would be #2 although Annex #1 will be removed in a
subsequent edition once the generalized Board selection procedures are
approved].
The main reason for recommending an Annex is that this material
will be predominantly instructional (vs. policy) and will likely change
frequently, especially in the near term as we work through the process.
I expect that it will be easier and cleaner to replace the Annex
instructions than to modify the language in Section 6.
Attached to this email is Draft #2 of proposed Section 6-GNSO
Work Prioritization, which has been reviewed/edited by Jaime and Liz.
I cleaned up all of the redlining; but, hopefully, you will notice that
many additions and changes that have been made to the text compared to
the initial draft presented in Nairobi.
I suggest that, if we can finalize and approve this material at
our next session (22 March - time TBD), we will then have 3 remaining
weeks to concentrate on the detailed Annex where I anticipate we will
have additional decisions to make. I am still working on the Annex
draft and hope to have a version ready by Thursday, but I wanted you to
have something to review as early as possible before our next session.
I would like to comment on the question that Wolf posed in
Nairobi about the GCOT's involvement with this effort. I do not
believe that the GCOT need take any action with respect to these WPM
procedures or, for that matter, those of the Working Group or PDP Work
Teams. According to the GCOT Charter (see below), there is no task that
places the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) under its auspices,
temporarily or permanently. The GCOT was initially challenged to
develop those procedures necessary to seat the new Council in Seoul
(completed) and, since that time, other sections have been identified
for its consideration, e.g. voting abstentions, absentee voting,
vacancies/absences, Councilor term limits, and Board seat elections.
In my humble view, the GCOT's work should not be automatically extended
to any/all subjects that might end up in the GOP or it could morph into
a "standing committee" itself. In terms of the GOP's overall
integrity, I have separately recommended that Staff be directed to
ensure that, as new sections are added, the document is formatted
consistently, synchronized, and cross-referenced appropriately -
subject, of course, to Council review and approval.
Ken Bour
I. TEAM CHARTER/GOALS
The GNSO Operations Work Team will develop proposals for Council
consideration based on the Board's endorsement of GNSO
operations-related recommendations outlined in the 3 February 2008
Report of the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group on
GNSO Improvements (BGC WG Report). Those recommendations include but are
not limited to:
* Determine what steps are needed to establish the role of the
Council as a "strategic manager of the policy process."
* Define and develop scope and responsibilities of any other
standing "committees" as recommended by the BGC WG (those suggested to
date: committee to analyze trends; committee to benchmark policy
implementation)
* Develop "Statement of Interest" and "Declaration of Interest"
forms.
* Develop curriculum for training Council members, constituents,
facilitators and others.
* Review the current specifications and recommend rules for the
establishment of new constituencies within stakeholder groups, while
recognizing that differences exist between stakeholder groups and
constituencies.
* Review and recommend amendments as appropriate regarding
methods for encouraging, promoting and introducing new constituencies,
while recognizing that differences exist between stakeholder groups and
constituencies.
Attachment:
Prioritization Procedures Section 6-Work Prioritization (KBv2-JWv1-LGv1) with Gomes edits.doc
|