AW: [gnso-wpm-dt] WPM: Draft Procedures-Section 6
Thanks Ken. Agreed to with my comments attached. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. März 2010 22:08 An: Ken Bour; gnso-wpm-dt@xxxxxxxxx Cc: Liz Gasster Betreff: 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. [WUK: ] I was of the opinion that the GCOT should review and appropriately amend the council rules of procedure (somebody has to do this in future, too). I'm far away to involve any team in work already covered by another one. It's just to ensure that the WPM output shall fit to the RoPs. If that is guaranteed by the WPM work that's even better. 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+ WUK edits.doc
|