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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

I would prefer that we not spend our first call discussing this issue.  Only 
the Council can set size limits (see the STI resolution, for example).  It 
didn't.  I hope it's safe to say that we all agree that there is a lot to do in 
a short period of time.  I would personally prefer that we not spend any of 
that short period of time on an issue on which I doubt very much we can agree.



-----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 12:58 PM
To: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Draft agenda for the VI WG call next week


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
>       
> 
>