Mikey, Don't be too quick to withdraw this document. Others may still want to weigh in on this matter before the deadline... My position on the three 'contentious' elements that have been raised are as follows: (1) I agree that the candidates for Chair of a WG be as broad as possible. I understand the concerns about capture, but feel that with 'Chair training' that will be part of the toolkit, this issue is of lesser concern. (2) I agree that Liaisons should be able to act fully in the WG's, but in like manner as they do not vote at the Board level, perhaps we can apply the same rule here? (3) Consistent participation -- irrespective as to how people participate -- is critical to Working Groups. Therefore, I fully support the notion that if a participant cannot fully engage, they should step back. My experience working on review teams is that many may sign up, but few actually contribute, and fewer still show up for all the calls/meetings. So I support the concept of 'consistent participation'. Kind regards, RA Ronald N. Andruff President RNA Partners, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:46 PM To: Mike O'Connor Cc: bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Working Group Guidelines -- withdrawing the draft hi all, given the lateness of the hour (2 days before the filing deadline) and the depth of disagreements expressed about the draft, i am withdrawing it and will submit it as a personal comment rather than that of the BC. i'm disappointed that we couldn't have had this discussion several weeks ago. i think we need to tune up our policy-development process so that we avoid this kind of train wreck in the future. best, mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)