Internal linkages in the GNC, GNC CT, SAG, NCCs Q1. From the proposed visual on the internal relationship, Do you agree with this proposed structure and the groups? Don’t agree with diagram as it does not represent power dynamics/ relationships. E.g UNICEF as CLA- funds and recruits NCC and should be reflected as such.

Visual not showing the realities on the ground. Linkages need to be redefined. Where does the blurred country cluster/sector fit in the whole visual eg Kenya/Darfur.

Q2. What adjustments do you propose and why? Rewrite SAG ToRs if it will stay longer. Review and redefinition. Oversight for CLA and partners. TFs to be formed and do bits of work. Consider NCC to report to the GNC CT directly and not to UNICEF for neutrality????.

Q3. How should the SAG relate to the wider GNC? SAG with GNC SAG is a sub-set of GNC Provides oversight and direction Rotating membership NCC with GNC NCC placed at the core as they perform 100% cluster work. Probably playing a lot of coordination role than some partners No double hatting. GNC partners should come and play the role at country as well. TF with SAG and GNC Who initiates the decision to form a TF?? GNC partners

Q4. Are there any decisions that are automatically delegated to the SAG Don’t want the SAG as de-facto WG. Too much burden on members. Partners need to be consulted/informed on all issues. SAG should remain oversight and advisory. TFs to be formed for specific areas of work.

Q5. What are the next steps required to move this forward? SAG needed. Review the TORs so that they remain advisory and offer direction. Membership to be rotational. UNICEF involvement as CLA.