RE: [council] Draft minutes of GNSO Council teleconference 29 May 2008
- To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Draft minutes of GNSO Council teleconference 29 May 2008
- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:53:24 -0400
- Cc: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <7973D65FFB9B4C7AA7DD7DFB0ED245B8@PSEVO>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcjLm5uK4pvJ0NPcRqmDUCUQ6eSetwABKQcwABkTQ7A=
- Thread-topic: [council] Draft minutes of GNSO Council teleconference 29 May 2008
I agree that shorter is better. I would prefer an executive summary
format supplemented by audio and transcription.
Why are our phone meetings not transcribed? I've always found that
frustrating because it's then necessary to go through the entire audio
to find what is often a 3-minute dialogue. If we're heading in that
direction anyway, why not make it complete? Transcription has the added
benefit of being easily searchable.
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 4:59 AM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [council] Draft minutes of GNSO Council teleconference 29
I am increasingly concerned that the GNSO minutes are overly long and
detract from our work.
The current set is 17 pages long. Finding the relevant details - actions
we agreed upon - is hard.
Is it really necessary to record every detail of "he said" "she said"
and "he said again"?
If people want a minute by minute record we have the audio file.
A set of minutes should reflect:
1. Who was there
2. What was discussed (including key questions but not every question).
3. What was agreed.
This level of detail seems to have grown. Past DNSO and GNSO minutes
were not so lengthy.
Has there been direction from the Chair to the GNSO secretary to do them
in this way?
If so why?
If not, lets ask for shorter minutes please.