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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I actually agree with Mike, but with a slight variation on the theme.  At the 
end of Mike's e-mail he uses an example of a disproportionate amount of 
contracted parties and says that may be a basis to ask for less members from 
those houses.  I think the real issue is not just contracted parties, but those 
that want to be contracted parties.  So for example, Mind and Machines, Mike 
Rodebaugh, Ron Andruff and anyone else that represents potential new TLDs 
should also be considered.  In that way, I see it a number of categories of 
participants which may have overlap.

1.  Pure RYSG stakeholders with no interest in new TLDs
2.  Pure RrSG stakeholders with no intent on participating in the new TLD 
process (other than being a registrar for new TLDs)
3.  CSG stakeholder with no ties to new TLD applicants
4.  NCSG Stakeholders with no ties to new TLD applicants
5.  CSG or NCSG stakeholders with a tie to new TLD applicants
6.  New TLD Applicants (front end or back end registries) with no ties to any 
one stakeholder group.
7.  Individuals/ALAC with ties to new TLD applicants
8.  Individuals/ALAC with no ties to new TLD applicants. 

I even may have missed a few categories.

Given that I see no way to feasibly break this down by volunteer, I believe we 
should not entertain the exercise of limiting participation in the group.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:34 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Draft agenda for the VI WG call next week


Hi Stephane,

While I agree that a WG of 50 people can be unruly, based on past experience
in more than a dozen WGs, it is extremely doubtful that even half that many
people will be active consistently in this WG.  Anyway, I see no ability or
justification for the WG to arbitrarily limit its own number.  If anyone
would do that, it would be the Council but I think that also would be
improper.  

The entire point of WGs is to have as many perspectives as possible
meaningfully participate, so that diverse perspectives are considered and
synthesized.  On the other hand, if there are 40 participants from the
contracted parties, and 10 from elsewhere, then perhaps the contracted
parties should dramatically limit their number so the group is not
overweighted towards that side.  Naturally contract parties will have a keen
interest in these issues, so heightened participation is expected and
desired, but still the WG needs to be balanced in order to be effective.
That is far more important than trying to arbitrarily limit the overall
number of participants.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 


-----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