Re: [council] Meetings in LA

[Richard Lindsay <richard@interq.ad.jp>]

Theresa, fellow pNC members:

Overall I think you have presented an excellent idea.  Certainly
the Berkman Center has provided a lot of support and advice
to ICANN, or at least so it seems.  I don't know of any other
available third parties who could provide similar levels of service,
but would welcome any input from other pNC members.

This brings up a point that I wanted to address, that of pooling
of some resources, particularly concerning meeting support etc.
I know our secretariat is diligently working on keeping up the
lists and web pages, but it seems to me that preparations for
the various ICANN related meetings are probably overwhelming.

While I don't suggest that ICANN bear all the costs, I do think
it would be reasonable for the DNSO to provide funding to
ICANN to support remote meeting participation etc.  This is
something that Theresa asked about on the ga list and generated
a brief flurry of activity :-)   I believe this should be extended
to the constituency level as well.  I believe duplicating the same
efforts (getting bridges, arranging real audio feeds etc.) for each
SO and each constituency are wasteful.  Of course there would
be costs involved, and we should address how these should
be allocated.

This is basically already happening now, as the Berkman center staff
were extremely helpful in all the remote participation support for
Santiago.

Any comments?

Best,
Richard

Theresa Swinehart wrote:

>
> Therefore, I have a suggestion. Instead of the council (which already has
> enough to do right now) trying to sort out a procedure that works, we ask
> the Berkman Center (e.g., Jonathan, if of course that's ok with him) to work
> with the NC members to develop and implement procedures for the efficient
> conduct of business at NC meetings. These procedures would be suggested in
> time for consideration and possible implementation at the next NC meeting
> (date still to be determined).
>
> The reason I suggest the Berkman Center is that from what I understand they
> have experience and are familiar with the ICANN/multicultural/electronic
> environment/conference call, and any other challenges that need to be
> considered, and as far as I'm concerned those are criteria that are needed
> to develop something sooner than later. Seems to me we shouldn't spend to
> much time analyzing how to set up some procedures, but rather try to get
> something moving forward soon. As I'm sure others also feel, it is
> unacceptable for the NC to have another meeting like the last one and it is
> our responsibility to make sure it does not happen again.
>
> I'd be interested in thoughts on the proposal to have an outside party work
> with the NC to develop procedures. I'm open to other suggestions of a third
> party that can be asked to do it, but would note that we shouldn't spend too
> much time on debating the method by which to get it done, but rather to
> focus on getting it done and having a chance to review and see if its'
> functional.

--
_/_/_/interQ Incorporated
_/_/_/System Division
_/_/_/Director and General Manager
_/_/_/Richard A. S. Lindsay