ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[nc-intake]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [nc-intake] IC report for next NC


Philip,
 
Sympathizing with you in many senses,
I do want to believe that NC can function as
an efficient communication body within the DNSO.
 
> Lets give it a try
> if problems arise we can think again and change it.
 
Yes, we can have another tuning period for the real final.
Thank you again for your coordination here.
 
YJ
YJ
thanks your quick response.
 
Membership of IC committee.
This is already decided - we are the members! That is: Philip Sheppard,Caroline Chicoine, Paul Kane,Y J Park ,Michael Schneider.
The Intake Committee already exists.Our first task was to do this report. We are not a one-time drafting committee, we are the IC.
 
Safeguards
I do appreciate your ideas on safeguards but I think we are solving problems that do not exist. The only reason for the IC to do the NC agenda is to take the burden of work off the NC Chair and to ensure that meetings are called regularly and documents sent out in time.
 
There is NO reason to be worried that the IC committee will filter the agenda or the NC Chair may dominate. Are there issues that any of us wanted on the NC agenda that have been refused and that we still believe the NC should discuss ? I do not know of any.
 
We have sketched out a system for setting an agenda and giving time for consultation. I think we should be flexible though - if there is a reason to change an agenda then lets do it. Lets avoid too many rules to decide what we want to talk about - it gets bureaucratic.
 
Lets give it a try - if problems arise we can think again and change it.
 
Philip
 
 
 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>