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

["Dr. Nii N. Quaynor" <quaynor@ghana.com>]

Javier,

Please just propose a counter agenda not push back on one proposal. What
agenda do you want to see? I asked for this earlier from you and got no
reply. Please, work with us on this one and have a fruitful GA meeting.

Nii

>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
>
>
>
>
>
>