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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Wouldn't the time zone spread be just about the same no matter how many we have 
> the some minimal number.

I suggest we pick a day and then rotate in a way that shares the pain. In this 
respect, I also suggest co-chars so that they can be pain-sharing as well.  
this might mean that all 'decisions' made in teleconferences might need to be 
discussed on list and quickly revisited at the beginning of the next meeting.  
though as Nairobi-west and Nairobi-more-west showed, people can get up at the 
most interesting hours when it is worth it to them.

a.



On 18 Mar 2010, at 14:48, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> 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
>>      
>> 
>> 
>