-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi, I tend to see the council as the aggregation point for the various SGs groups, and the SGs as aggregation point for the various constituencies and interest groups. Seems appropriate to me that the Council should collect, do the synthesis and pass things on. After all the council is the representative of the GNSO and its chair is the chair of he GNSO. Who better to bring things together than our chair. Sometimes we worry about the loss of reputation of the GNSO and its council. Perhaps the effort to minimize it in the service of the constituencies is part of the issue. And I do not mean to say it is a hierarchy, but rather a progressive aggregation, with each entity responsible to the representative of the groups it contains (except, of course, for the Board which claims not to be composed of representatives). If we don't use the council as an aggregation point, what we seem to say is that the task of aggregation and recommendation defaults to the staff and Board. Personally, I don't think that is optimal. avri On 27-Aug-14 18:08, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
All,
I have a question.
In as much as the original request was made of SO and ACs leaders, are you not funneling your recommendations through your constituency or stakeholder group? I would hate to see the suggestions from those groups overlooked because staff looks at the GNSO Council as some sort of hierarchical filter.
Berard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT/uB+AAoJEOo+L8tCe36Hl9YH/jXrFQCbAGUcQwbIwNByRgD2 sYFMXOxNFstVakpov7KQlR9IY4DlM9OMGeL8kSIFO79ifAd9ZU7YgjpEpS/3KmQr MyhqJXiqOtzLugQTcXf+keYnK7nvwmwmxfA4jFZMO4G5t+5YDsslLQ0X83nFFdIf tNwX6u8u7C5J7wIQR9QVZAUDzlV1BlPmHJXvXW+UdFr8S1kuPcdJ0nAt4zM1TT+4 si2e2/TPmpzQb46iRpatyIlLPrdHN1GqV22wzmh/wZlwy4TlujOssNd6Nk/I2YS5 FYAG2rihOhwxwcmCkaItlPxAPsSFYTxfDbGmdCStvCp2Je3z0oA0QHcg52P1amQ= =yWnq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----