Re: [council] Meetings: any logical order?

["YJ Park" <yjpark@nic.or.kr>]

Hello, self-tormenting NC members,

Finally, I can be back to online from "Santiago flu" through "Office relocation".
I have been still snowed under a lot of [council] emails so far,
I'd like to unfold my position with regard to the issues Amadeu has raised.
Basically, I am for Amadeu in general, however, here I want to express some 
subtle details relating to "how to hold the NC meetings in LA" and
                                           "how to schedule General Assembly in LA"
                          
1. With regard to holding "TWO" NC meetings instead of "one".

Yes, I agree on all the points made here. 
The prep NC meeting is needed to meet all the responsibilities. 
Otherwise, the NC meeting will be proceeded as it used to. 

>B) I propose therefore that we maintain the NC meeting on Thursday
>after the NC meeting, but that we add a new one, preparatory, on
>Monday evening. With dinner, if necessary. (yes I know: webcasting.
>But the role of such meeting could even be limited to :a) new NC "get
>acquainted" b) wroking out of the final details fo the agenda of Thu
>meeting c) preparation for GA and BoD presentations and d=
>preparation, with GA chair of GA meeting). 

In addition to my interpretation of Amadeu's message regarding GA & WGs
I'd like to propose of "ONE" day for WGs and GA.

So, probably a prep NC meeting should be assigned earlier than Tuesday.

>D) What about WGs?
>
>Do we beleive that WG B, D, D or E should meet at LA? In this case, I
>would suggest Tuesday morning, before the GA.

Regards,

YJ Park


>A) We all agree that the following is the most reasonable:
>
>Constituencies
>GA
>ICANN BoD
>
>The real problem is where should the NC meetigns be placed. Ithink
>that Javier's point that a meeting after the BoD might be necessary in
>order to stat the implementation of possible diecisions taken there.
>
>But, as I have mentioned, I found disturbing and unacceptable that NC
>did not met before the GA or the Bod, therefore being unable to even
>have a hint of what we were supposed to explain during both meetings.
>And indeed, making absolutely impossible to meet our duty to take some
>responsibility for overall DNSO management.




>As for the GA, I have mixed thoughts about a whole-day schedule.
>Sntiago proved that the only thing realy works there, under the
>current cirucmstances is "consensus by exhaustion" (see discussion of
>WG-A related motion....). Doubling the time alocation would only make
>things worse. But as many othersfave already pointed out, it is not
>worth disucssion about "how long" before having an agenda....
>
>                                                                      
>                       C) n cae we don't finally need a full day GA,
>then the first NC meeting, could be moved to Tueday afternoon, being
>the "big" one, using Thursday for last-minute things and the
>unavoidable left-overs. This will also allow some efficient negoations
>of unclear motions and the like....
>

>
>Best regards,
>
>Amadeu
>
>