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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

The easy (though not as easy as it appears) answer is to not rely on
meetings nearly as much as in the past.  Perhaps this is not the best group
to try new things since there is such a short timeframe, but it may be
necessary if in fact the group of willing participants is as large as it
might seem.  The wiki and the mail list have to be the most important tools
for WGs going forward.  In the not so distant future, they may need to scale
to accommodate a hundred participants or more!

For all WGs, we must recognize that many people will not have time for WG
calls, for example, and will choose to participate via the email list and
otherwise in writing.  This is particularly important not only for those
with jobs unrelated to ICANN, but also for those who do not speak English as
a first language and for those whose timezone may not be friendly to the WG
schedule.  Thus at least it should be made clear that no meaningful WG
decisions should ever be accomplished without ability for input from the
mail list, and specifically should never be taken on the basis of consensus
from any one or few WG calls.

I hope we all agree with that, but if not I'd appreciate any contrary
reasoning.

Thanks,
Mike

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 Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 11:49 AM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Draft agenda for the VI WG call next week


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
>       
> 
>