hi Avri. i love it when i blunder into something like this. interesting! so i hijacked the thread over to it’s own new one so we don’t unduly tangle up the MSI discussion. i don’t hold this as an absolute do or die issue — but if the Council has authority and responsibility for the *whole* GNSO, i think we’ve got some figuring-things-out to do. i’ve been laboring under the notion that the heads of the SGs and constituencies had responsibility and authority over their respective organizations and that the Council truly is a policy council. can you point me at the right places to go learn more about this topic? i’m in that “oops, i’d better go educate myself” mode at the moment. thanks for the heads up, mikey On Feb 4, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi
On 04-Feb-14 10:02, Mike O'Connor wrote:
which brings me to the last idea for this post. i wonder whether we need *two* GNSO Councils — a Policy Council (us) and a Leadership Council comprised of the heads of the SGs and constituencies who elect their own leader to coordinate and drive the work of those functional bodies.
While this is the sort of thing that the review of the GNSO can come up with, I personally think it is a really bad idea that will confuse things even further.
I think that the GNSO has one leadership council, the GNSO Council, not a GNSO Policy Council but a GNSO Council. And while there are those who have had a long standing campaign to denature the GNSO Council to make it less then it is supposed to be, the only real effect of splitting the leadership into two councils would be to weaken the GNSO and promote inter-council conflict on whose responsibility something was. Finger pointing would be the order of the day.
Definitely something I will argue against on every opportunity.
avri
PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)