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

[Javier <javier@aui.es>]

Fay,

>>> (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. 

The bylaws state how the DNSO works, and it is very clear that the NC
decides about the Chair of the DNSO. 

There is no reason I can see for the ccTLD constituency to try to push
otherwise, except trying to have the GA push for a Chair that the ccTLDs
want elected, because they believe that the NC will not elect him and hope
that a push from the GA will... I really think that this is not a good line
of discussion, please do not force it.

I would also like to remind you that the ccTLD constituency is not the GA,
That item has not been placed there by the GA but by the ccTLD constituency. 

>>> 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.

I have nothing against constructive ideas being brought forward. I object
to the agenda giving preferece to the ones stated in the meeting organized
by your organization (CENTR) in Berlin. All ideas should be given equal
weight. There is no reason to act otherwise.

My main objection, in general, is to have a constituency, or a member of
it,  try to push its interests by manipulating the GA agenda, and claim
that it is for the good of the GA.

>> 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

You accepted the stated time-frame in a NC meeting. The NC has not voted to
change it.

The agenda cannot be published until it complies with the bylaws and prior
decisions of the NC.

Javier