Re: [council] upcoming teleconference thursday september 21

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@corenic.org>]

your right caroline... there are no surprises here........ but there has
also been little or no discussion here on the list and this frankly troubles
me.

i was just trying to stimulate some deeper involvement and hopefully provide
some dialogue & suggestions prior to the next teleconference. as i said, i
had no suggestions from snyone except yj on potential agenda items for this
teleconference until i posted a tentative agenda.

this implies to me that, even though members are aware of an upcoming
teleconference, it is not very high on the list of priorities for them.
trying to develop more interest and discussion in advance is a bit of a
frustrating task. i was hoping that we could generate a bit more enthusiasm
by delaying a week  (especially hopeful about more input from every
constituancy regarding the DNSO review process)

as of right now i have 3 of the 19 members who have responded to me who said
1. cant make it but see no problem in delaying it one week
2. cant make 2nd and really dont want delay
3. cant make 2nd date and dont want delay

does that mean that all 15 others will definitely make the 28th or what !
how many are not going to be abvle to make this weeks teleconference if we
keep the original date ?

does someone want to provide a bridge for the conference regardless of which
date?

ken








----- Original Message -----
From: <cchicoine@dkwlaw.com>
To: Digitel - Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>
Cc: names council <council@dnso.org>; Andrew McLaughlin
<mclaughlin@pobox.com>; <owner-council@dnso.org>; Louis Touton
<touton@icann.org>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: [council] upcoming teleconference thursday september 21


>
> As you may recall we set this date a while ago so that people could better
> plan their schedules, and in fact part of the intake committees
> recommendations is to have a schedule of the meetings in advance so people
> can plan better.  I will not be available the 28th.
>
> More importantly, however, I do not think anything on your proposed agenda
> should be a surprise to anyone.  Moreover, if the need for the
postponement
> is to promote a better discussion, before you postpone, I would like to
see
> a commitment from the parties involved (budget committee, DNSO review
> committee, outreach) that they will have a report for us no later than
this
> Friday.
>
>
>