[council] Re: Draft Schedule for GNSO related meetings in LA

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

A few responses:

On 19 okt 2007, at 10.34, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> I do understand the mess we are in with no decisions taken at the  
> last call and a Council
> meeting now blended in with a public forum.
I do not beleive we are in a mess.  I am sorry you do.  I believe we  
have a lot of work to do.  And we have to do it as appropriately as  
possible.
> However, it is not appropriate to use the Sat and Sun meetings as  
> substitute Council
> meetings.
I do not understand why it is not appropriate for these to _be_  
council meetings.  There is no rule that says we can have only 1  
meeting while in a face to face meeting.  I think that we can use our  
time as profitably as possible and if that involves having more hours  
of meeting, I see no rules that bar it.
Now if most of the council members believe that it is inappropriate,  
that is a different story.
> Firstly, our by-laws require an agenda and 7 days notice: ie  
> certainty not maybe it is,
> maybe it isn't.

We have an agenda as of now and there is still more then a week  
before each of those meetings.  and I did mention that any motions  
would have to be submitted in advance other then minor ones (e.g. we  
vote to thank X for Y. or we need a sub group to do draft Z).  As is  
always the case.
> Secondly, the Sat and Sun meetings come BEFORE Constituency  
> meetings: surely the reason for
> delaying the decision making at our last call, was to be able to  
> discuss in the
> Constituencies?
Yes, and i was not suggesting we make any major decisions that have  
never been discussed before.  On each possible decisions, as was done  
in the past, the council members can indicate whether they are ready  
or not for a vote and whether they need to take the issue back to  
their constituencies.  So I am not suggesting anything different then  
what we have done in the past.  And if no one suggests any  
significant motions in time for the meeting, then there won't be any  
significant motions that might need constituency pre-discussion.
I am aware that some decisions are of such a major importance that  
council members need to go back to the constituencies before they can  
vote.  On the other hand, there are other decisions, e.g. to  
constitute an ad hoc group to do something,  that may be possible for  
a council member to vote on without returning for specific instructions.
> Thirdly, whereas I am all in favour or improving outreach in the  
> public forum, it is not
> acceptable to compromise the integrity of our Council meeting as a  
> result. Either we can
> achieve what Council must or we cannot. If the new format stops  
> Council functioning, the new
> format needs revisiting.
Are you suggesting that it does compromise the council's integrity?   
Certainly after we have tried this format once, we should review it  
and can either fine tune it or change.  We are doing this as a  
response to comments that were made by the commenting community, so I  
suggest we see if it works before we decide that it compromises our  
integrity.  And yes, a change in one place, may require some  
concomitant changes in other places.
> So, to end on my usual positive note.
> By all means lets use Sat and Sun to discuss the issues, but with  
> no votes.
I would like to hear other council member's opinions on this last  
point (on any of the points really, but especially on this last one)
> Then, the time needed on the actual Council meeting (Wed Oct 31)  
> can be short and sweet to
> do the voting.
Well we still need to listen to what is said by the community and  
then consider what has been said before voting.
thanks

a.