Re: [council] Agenda for GA meeting, Santiago Chile

[Fay Howard <fay@ripe.net>]

Javier, Nii

I support the agenda as published by the Chairman of the meeting and wish to
thank Nii for his efforts.
Three specific responses to Javier's comments: 

At 07:51 AM 8/17/99 +0200, Javier SOLA wrote: 
>
> Nii,
>
> I have strong objections to this agenda:
>
>
>>
>> 14:00 DNSO management/administration
>> (Objective: Discussion of GA chair such as the term (one term, or 
>> until nov. 1999, or other)
>
>
> The DNSO does not discuss the DNSO chair. The chair is elected by the NC.


Surely, it is not for you or the NC to decide what the DNSO discusses.  The GA
is entitled to debate this issue whether it gets a vote or not and a good NC
would be listenting to that debate not silencing it. 


>
>>
>> 16:00 Review of Working Groups
>> Working Groups established by the Interim Names Council
>> Working Groups proposed at public informal meeting held after Berlin 
>> DNSO General Assembly
>> (Objective: to scope the current work of the DNSO and to establish 
>> who is already involved and working on the issues identified. To 
>> identify current working group leaders and members.)
>
>
> The informal meeting organized in Berlin by the ccTLDs should NOT be
> mentioned in the agenda. Strong objection.
>


Why shouldn't the Berlin meeting of the DNSO community be mentioned?  Many
turned up to this including a good percentage of those now sitting in the Names
Council. Some constructive debate was generated in a true bottom-up spririt. 
THe NC is not an executive body and is there to listen to the DNSO community at
large.

>
>>
>> 17:00 ICANN Board Member Nomination Issue
>> WG-D Report
>> Discussion
>
>
> This issue should be part of the report of WG D above. There is no reason for
> it to be an independent issue, that is why it was taken out of another part
> of the agenda.
>
> Closing at 19:00 is far too late. If we take these two issues out we could
> get back to the original plan of finishing at 18:00, (discussion starts at
> 16:30 or 17:00, instead of 18:00).

As the time allocated to this meeting is rather limited I support the 19.00
finish.  People are travelling a long way and only get to meet physically a few
times per year.  There are many items on the agenda and I am sure we can manage
an extra hour of work

Fay