RE: [nc-intake] Drfat report for NC meeting 17 August

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@netsol.com>]

If all members of the GA including working group participants have direct
access to the IC email address, this could become difficult to manage
especially if the GA grows.  It seems like it would be more functional to
have a GA selected representative summarize GA issues and have direct access
to the IC email address.

This is not an issue I feel so strongly about that I would oppose Roberto's
suggestion.  We could start off this way and then change it later if it
becomes too cumbersome, but sometimes it's harder to do it that way because
it would be taking something away that people are used to if we changed it
later.

Aren't members of working groups defined to be members of the GA?  If so, it
is not necessary to include them separately.  If not, then I would eliminate
"ad hoc" so that any DNSO working group is included, not just an ad hoc
working group.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: R.Gaetano@iaea.org [mailto:R.Gaetano@iaea.org]
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 3:40 AM
To: philip.sheppard@aim.be; nc-intake@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-intake] Drfat report for NC meeting 17 August


Phil and all,
Good morning.
Hope you had a good week-end.
 
Here are my few comments:

Explicitly the IC should not comprise representatives from each NC
constituency for the following reasons: 

I would prefere:

Explicitly the IC should not necessarily  comprise representatives from each
NC constituency for the following reasons: 

 

	

An IC e-mail address shall be created (Intake suggestions) whereby any of
the following persons can make proposals for NC agenda items:

	

*	members of the Names Council 


	

	

*	the Names Council secretariat 


	

	

*	members of the ICANN Board 


	

	

*	members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the
ga@dnso.org or announce@dnso.org lists 


	

	

*	subscribers to an active DNSO ad hoc working group  

 What is the feeling of others about a "completely open" input, i.e. without
limitation to membership to lists or groups?
 
In any case, the GA has also a "voting membership", that is separate from
ga@dnso.org <mailto:ga@dnso.org>  and from announce@dnso.org
<mailto:announce@dnso.org> . I think it should be included.
 







Points of information and normal interventions. At a physical meeting, an NC
member may raise a hand and wait to be recognised by the chair and during a
teleconference an NC member may speak in an appropriate gap and say
immediately "their name to speak". This will be noted by the chair who will
invite the intervention in due course. 

What happened to Caroline's physical layout proposal? I thought nobody spoke
against.

 Regards

Roberto