Hi, Just to write down the point I was making about a "chair and alternate chair" concept. I find this is becoming an increasingly poplar notion both in ICANN and outside. One of the disadvantages of co-chairs, is that people on the outside of the group really don't know where to address the final responsibility for a group when there are co-chairs. If they are both equal, do you have to address both of them all the time? If one has made the call, do you get to go to the other for a revised all? One of the disadvantages of a chair/vice chair arrangement is that the vice chair can rarely take any action without first consulting her boss, the chair. This limits the usefulness of the vice chair role. With a chair and an alternate chair, you find that the point-person is established and in case of diverging opinion between those with responsibility, you know who the tie breaker is. But it allows the two to work together and cover each other's tasks. What most often seems to happen is that they end up dividing responsibilities according to their inclinations and talents. I beleive it has the advantage that both other arrangenemts offer without the disadvantages. Just a thought, avri
Hi Avri, On Feb 22, 2013, at 7:53 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
With a chair and an alternate chair, you find that the point-person is established and in case of diverging opinion between those with responsibility, you know who the tie breaker is. But it allows the two to work together and cover each other's tasks. What most often seems to happen is that they end up dividing responsibilities according to their inclinations and talents. I beleive it has the advantage that both other arrangenemts offer without the disadvantages.
This seems like a reasonable approach to me. Can you point to any examples in which the chair/alt-chair approach is/was used? Thanks, -drc
Hi, The most recent example I have, was in the Inter Register Transfer Protocol - Part C working group (IRTP-C) in the GNSO. In that case we evolved into this structure. Two of use were elected as co-chair: one who know the material inside and out and one who was more of a process person in terms of this subject matter. In short time the group and the co-chairs realized that what we had was a chair and alternate chair and that is the way the group was run for a year. Another example was the Vertical Integration (VI) group, which while it never reached consensus did manage to do its work in finite time and did manage to put out a report of the issues that did have consensus and which contained a serious and fairly complete discussion of the issue. avri On 22 Feb 2013, at 11:11, David Conrad wrote:
Hi Avri,
On Feb 22, 2013, at 7:53 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
With a chair and an alternate chair, you find that the point-person is established and in case of diverging opinion between those with responsibility, you know who the tie breaker is. But it allows the two to work together and cover each other's tasks. What most often seems to happen is that they end up dividing responsibilities according to their inclinations and talents. I beleive it has the advantage that both other arrangenemts offer without the disadvantages.
This seems like a reasonable approach to me. Can you point to any examples in which the chair/alt-chair approach is/was used?
Thanks, -drc
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Hi, One example I forgot, the gTLD Registries Stakeholder group (RsSG) uses the Chair/Alternate chair model. As does the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) Policy Committee. avri On 22 Feb 2013, at 11:24, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
The most recent example I have, was in the Inter Register Transfer Protocol - Part C working group (IRTP-C) in the GNSO. In that case we evolved into this structure. Two of use were elected as co-chair: one who know the material inside and out and one who was more of a process person in terms of this subject matter. In short time the group and the co-chairs realized that what we had was a chair and alternate chair and that is the way the group was run for a year.
Another example was the Vertical Integration (VI) group, which while it never reached consensus did manage to do its work in finite time and did manage to put out a report of the issues that did have consensus and which contained a serious and fairly complete discussion of the issue.
avri
On 22 Feb 2013, at 11:11, David Conrad wrote:
Hi Avri,
On Feb 22, 2013, at 7:53 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
With a chair and an alternate chair, you find that the point-person is established and in case of diverging opinion between those with responsibility, you know who the tie breaker is. But it allows the two to work together and cover each other's tasks. What most often seems to happen is that they end up dividing responsibilities according to their inclinations and talents. I beleive it has the advantage that both other arrangenemts offer without the disadvantages.
This seems like a reasonable approach to me. Can you point to any examples in which the chair/alt-chair approach is/was used?
Thanks, -drc
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
On 23 Feb 2013, at 01:53, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
One example I forgot, the gTLD Registries Stakeholder group (RsSG) uses the Chair/Alternate chair model.
correction RySG
As does the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) Policy Committee.
avri
On 22 Feb 2013, at 11:24, Avri Doria wrote:
Hi,
The most recent example I have, was in the Inter Register Transfer Protocol - Part C working group (IRTP-C) in the GNSO. In that case we evolved into this structure. Two of use were elected as co-chair: one who know the material inside and out and one who was more of a process person in terms of this subject matter. In short time the group and the co-chairs realized that what we had was a chair and alternate chair and that is the way the group was run for a year.
Another example was the Vertical Integration (VI) group, which while it never reached consensus did manage to do its work in finite time and did manage to put out a report of the issues that did have consensus and which contained a serious and fairly complete discussion of the issue.
avri
On 22 Feb 2013, at 11:11, David Conrad wrote:
Hi Avri,
On Feb 22, 2013, at 7:53 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
With a chair and an alternate chair, you find that the point-person is established and in case of diverging opinion between those with responsibility, you know who the tie breaker is. But it allows the two to work together and cover each other's tasks. What most often seems to happen is that they end up dividing responsibilities according to their inclinations and talents. I beleive it has the advantage that both other arrangenemts offer without the disadvantages.
This seems like a reasonable approach to me. Can you point to any examples in which the chair/alt-chair approach is/was used?
Thanks, -drc
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
_______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
Hi all, I find the idea of alternate chair interesting, and it should be possible to eliminate some of the disadvantages by close teamwork. So I am positive about having a chair and alternate chair. I will nevertheless volunteer for alternate or vice chair. Best, Lise -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: atrt2-bounces@icann.org [mailto:atrt2-bounces@icann.org] På vegne af Avri Doria Sendt: 22. februar 2013 16:54 Til: atrt2@icann.org Emne: [atrt2] Chairs etc. Hi, Just to write down the point I was making about a "chair and alternate chair" concept. I find this is becoming an increasingly poplar notion both in ICANN and outside. One of the disadvantages of co-chairs, is that people on the outside of the group really don't know where to address the final responsibility for a group when there are co-chairs. If they are both equal, do you have to address both of them all the time? If one has made the call, do you get to go to the other for a revised all? One of the disadvantages of a chair/vice chair arrangement is that the vice chair can rarely take any action without first consulting her boss, the chair. This limits the usefulness of the vice chair role. With a chair and an alternate chair, you find that the point-person is established and in case of diverging opinion between those with responsibility, you know who the tie breaker is. But it allows the two to work together and cover each other's tasks. What most often seems to happen is that they end up dividing responsibilities according to their inclinations and talents. I beleive it has the advantage that both other arrangenemts offer without the disadvantages. Just a thought, avri _______________________________________________ atrt2 mailing list atrt2@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/atrt2
participants (4)
-
Avri Doria -
Avri Doria -
David Conrad -
Lise Fuhr