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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here's one practical concern for the WG to consider: with 50-60 members, how 
would meeting times be established?  A Doodle Poll would have options all over 
the board.  It's hard enough to find good meeting times with a small group.  
Would some WG members be more important than others in terms of identifying a 
time.  Would it be necessary to identifying key players for whom scheduling 
preference would be given?

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:48 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Draft agenda for the VI WG call next week
> 
> 
> VI Members:
> 
> I would like to address the point of the number of volunteers 
> that we have in this WG which rumor has it is above 50 at this point.
> 
> I believe we should welcome as many volunteers in the ICANN 
> process as possible, but I also believe that there is 
> sometimes too much of a good thing.
> 
> I was a member of the recent STI WG which when established 
> had a set, limited and balanced number of participants and 
> guess what? It was a WG that was able to accomplish an 
> enormous amount of work in a very short time. 
> It broke the mold of the a normal working group which 
> currently average 416 days. 
> 
> I know many claim that even though 50-60 will join , only a 
> handful will participate, but if that is the case then why 
> are we concerned about limiting the number of participants? 
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> -----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
>       
> 
>