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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mike,

The model I propose gives an equal number of reps to each group. I would not 
see any justification for one group to have more than another and did not 
propose that.

In any case, my proposal is just that, a basis for discussion on our call.

If you are seriously arguing that a WG with more than 50 people is workable, 
then I would start to question your desire to ever see this work completed.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 18 mars 2010 à 17:34, Mike Rodenbaugh a écrit :

> 
> 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
>       
> 
>