RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Draft agenda for the VI WG call next week

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

VI Members:

I would like to address the point of the number of volunteers that we have in 
this WG which rumor has it is above 50 at this point.

I believe we should welcome as many volunteers in the ICANN process as 
possible, but I also believe that there is sometimes too much of a good thing.

I was a member of the recent STI WG which when established had a set, limited 
and balanced number of participants and guess what? It was a WG that was able 
to accomplish an enormous amount of work in a very short time. 
It broke the mold of the a normal working group which currently average 416 
days. 

I know many claim that even though 50-60 will join , only a handful will 
participate, but if that is the case then why are we concerned about limiting 
the number of participants? 

Jeff



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 8:47 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Draft agenda for the VI WG call next week


Dear VI WG members,

Please find below my draft agenda for the meeting we will soon schedule for 
next week.

This must still be seen as a preliminary meeting, where a number of 
housekeeping tasks are to be performed, not least choosing a Chair.

For simplicity's sake, I would suggest the group elect its Chair by a simple 
voice vote during the call, but if others feel that is too rough a procedure, I 
would naturally welcome other proposals.

In order to get that process rolling, may I suggest that any nomination for 
Chair be made without delay, and that we set a deadline for these nominations 
at the day before our conference call is scheduled, so that all WG members have 
had a chance to consider the potential candidates? 

Please also note the agenda item on limited the number of participants on the 
WG. As things stand, the GNSO secretariat has received over 50 requests from 
volunteers. I am of the opinion that beyond 20 members, any WG becomes too 
large to manage. Considering that the Nairobi Board resolution has placed this 
WG in the spotlight with regards to coming up with a policy on VI sooner rather 
than later, my advice to the group would be to voluntarily limit its breadth to 
maintain efficiency. I suggest a method of doing that in the agenda, but once 
again other suggestions are welcome.

One last point, I hope there will be time on the call to consider Obj 5. As a 
reminder, the Council has asked to WG to come back with either a final Obj 5 or 
2 possibles for that Obj by its next meeting. This means that ideally, the WG 
would need to put something forward by March 24.

Please let me know directly if you have other agenda items you wish to see 
included.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Agenda for VI WG call on March XX, 2010

1. Roll call
2. Election of WG Chair.
        2.1. Review of nominations for Chair.
        2.2. Do nominated candidates accept their nominations?
        2.3. Q&A with the WG.
        2.4. Chair election by voice vote.
3. WG participation.
        3.1. Discussion, should WG participation be limited?
        3.2. If WG wishes to limit participation to a set number, how could 
this be done? (One suggestion, limit to 2 participants per GNSO group, then 2 
participant per other SO or AC).
        3.3. If method of participation limitation agreed on, call for WG 
members to go back to their respective groups and get the names of their 
definitive participants.
4. Frequency of WG calls (weekly, other?).
5. Objective 5.
6. AOB.

Stéphane