Re: [ALAC] CWG-Stewardship Proposal Motion
My position on 2c and 2d is that we should not include them. In both cases, I believe that they would actually harm or reduce the effectiveness of the processes in question. For 2c, I believe that since the CSC has either triggered a special IFRT or is a major source of input into a regular IFRT, the RT is well served by having direct input from the CSC. The alternative is that information from the CSC is either filtered through some other member, is provided solely in written form, or a CSC member is requested to be present to relay the information directly. The first two are poor replacements for direct dialogue and the latter is effectively a Liaison. For 2d, any group contributing a member of the SCWG may feel that their IFRT member is the person best suited for the SCWG. In the case of a group with limited resources such as the ALAC, a second person with suitable knowledge may not even be available. Alan At 25/06/2015 12:49 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Please find attached the proposed motion in WORD and PDF formats.
Note that Resolved items 2c and 2d are "bracketed" and the ALAC will need to decide on whether to include them or not prior to voting on the motion itself.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Hi Alan, I support the motion as it is. I see no problem maintaining 2C and 2D. It is my humble opinion from a governance perspective to avoid having the same individuals in multiple organization structures. It waters down the very essence of oversight. Regards On 6/25/15, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
My position on 2c and 2d is that we should not include them.
In both cases, I believe that they would actually harm or reduce the effectiveness of the processes in question.
For 2c, I believe that since the CSC has either triggered a special IFRT or is a major source of input into a regular IFRT, the RT is well served by having direct input from the CSC. The alternative is that information from the CSC is either filtered through some other member, is provided solely in written form, or a CSC member is requested to be present to relay the information directly. The first two are poor replacements for direct dialogue and the latter is effectively a Liaison.
For 2d, any group contributing a member of the SCWG may feel that their IFRT member is the person best suited for the SCWG. In the case of a group with limited resources such as the ALAC, a second person with suitable knowledge may not even be available.
Alan
At 25/06/2015 12:49 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Please find attached the proposed motion in WORD and PDF formats.
Note that Resolved items 2c and 2d are "bracketed" and the ALAC will need to decide on whether to include them or not prior to voting on the motion itself.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Barrack Otieno