Re: [council] Telephone Conference - Wednesday 15 September 1999 at 09:00 NY Time

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Raul  Echeberria <raul@inia.org.uy> wrote:
> 
> Dennis et al.
> 
> I believe that we need to have more advances before the next
> teleconference, so I don't thint that a teleconference next 15th september
> would be useful.
> 
> I strongly prefer to work by e-mail instead of take decisions about several
> subjects in a teleconference of 1 or 2 hours.
> 
> As far as I see, we have five points to discuss at this moment.
> 
> 1) Board election
> 2) business/budget
> 3) WG-D outcome
> 4) Berkman Center assistance
> 5) agenda and schedule of LA meeting.
> 
> Three of the five points are being discussed now. (1,4, and 5). Let's try
> to get some resolution in those point and start to discuss 2 and 3 before
> the teleconference.
> 
> 1) We have two proposals : Jonhatan (A) and Javier (B)
> Is there any other  idea or we have to decide between A and B. 
> Could we put a deadline to discuss in each constituency and decide it in
> the NC.
> 
> Beside, we need some guidelines (from Dennis??) about how comply with
> ICANN's bylaws (no more than 50 % from the same region, etc. )
> Can I help you, Dennis ?
> 
> 
> 4) I already expressed my opinion. Richard, Theresa, Caroline and Ted had
> agreed with ask Berkman Center to assist us. 
> What do the rest of the NC members think about it ? Please, send your
> opinion then we could at least close one point.
>  
> 5) We have some advances in this subject. We need someone who could
> summarize all contributions what we receive/ed. 
> Who can do it ??
> 
Raul,

Here is a summary of contributions re agenda and schedule of LA meeting (5).

Don, Ken, Raul, Caroline, Theresa, Richard, Ted, Nigel sent
contributions re LA agenda.

Richard sent an additional important request for an informal meeting
amongst Names Council members to get to know each other.

There were no objections that the order of meetings should be:
    1.  Constituencies
    2.  GA
    3.  Names Council
    4.  ICANN Board

Questions were raised re expansion of the GA to the whole day, and
many supports received for the need to crystallize the agenda for the GA
before deciding to expand it.
One concern about the measurement of GA consensus.

Secretariat comment:
We cannot go further without the agenda for the GA.

In Santiago the agenda for GA and NC had the same large content,
reports from Constituencies and WGs.
The GA needs updates from the NC, the NC needs updates from the GA.
If we consider the permanent request that the face to face meetings
of the GA do not have any advantage over the email participation
where all the work should be done, then my idea would be to
have reports from Constituencies and WGs done only once.

I believe it's time to start the discussion on the ga@dnso.org list
on that subject, but would aprreciate to have your thoughts
before.

Elisabeth (Secretariat)