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

[Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello

The size of this WG can be about 50 as long as the representation from
business and non-business constituencies is approximately balanced.

A larger group would bring in more diverse inputs as also make it
possible for this WG to assign sub-topics to sub committees as the
work progresses.


Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
http://www.isocmadras.com
facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz





On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>