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

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

Mike, Kristina,

Thanks for sharing your views.

The item is on the agenda. If the group does not wish to discuss the 
possibility of limiting the number of participants, then this agenda item will 
take no time at all and we will move on.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 18 mars 2010 à 18:11, Mike Rodenbaugh a écrit :

> 
> Stephane,
> 
> I agree with Jeff Neuman re attempts to force a limited number of volunteers
> into various boxes based on constituency or SG representation.  Even among
> the four SGs, there are wide variances of perspective and opinion within
> each one.  And WGs are supposed to be open to everyone, not just those
> affiliated with constituencies.  Large working groups have operated very
> successfully in the past, namely wrt IDNs and domain tasting, but the key is
> to have a good manager.  (In the case of domain tasting, I give all the
> credit to Olof Nordling of ICANN Staff!)  Other large groups have fared far
> worse, like the WHOIS groups.
> 
> Anyway there is no justification to limit numbers.  And there is no doubt in
> my mind that WG calls will not have more than even a dozen people
> consistently.  I personally will not participate on calls, but intend to
> maintain vigilance and participation on the mail list only.  I suspect quite
> a few others have the same plan.
> 
> I do want to see this work done quickly, as the Council expects and the
> community demands.  But artificially limiting the numbers and participation
> on a WG is not the right way to achieve that end.  It will only open the
> WG's output up to more intense scrutiny and criticism by anyone excluded, as
> what happened with the IRT report and indeed to a lesser extent with the STI
> report.
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:58 AM
> 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
>>      
>> 
>> 
> 
>