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

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

Dear WG members,

Margie has asked that a couple of agenda items be added:

1.      Initiating a Public Comment Forum--- per the Bylaws, we are required to 
initiate a public comment period when we initiate a PDP.  In other PDPs we 
often use that opportunity to solicit input on specific issues-  so the working 
group might want to determine what information it might want to seek during the 
initial public comment forum.

2.      Scheduling Staff support-   at our GNSO wrap up meeting, Tim Ruiz 
requested an antitrust briefing at the commencement of the process.  Do we want 
that at the first meeting, or at the second meeting?  Also, would other 
briefings be appropriate, such as having Staff brief the working group on the 
latest documents released during Nairobi on Vertical Integration?

Stéphane

Le 18 mars 2010 à 16:46, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :

> 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
>