RE: [council] GNSO reform - need to set up the schedule NOW !

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I do not think that our first meeting should be face to face.  I do
think it will likely be valuable to have a face to face meeting but,
when we do, we need to maximize our time in that meeting.  Therefore, I
believe that we should use our first week to establish some foundational
items as both Philip and I mentioned in emails.  Of course, those items
need to be supported by the members of the group once it is formed
(hopefully by Monday).

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 5:05 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO reform - need to set up the schedule NOW !
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Philip thanks for getting the ball rolling.
> 
> I agree we need to get to this right away.
> 
> I will be he Nomcom Appointee member of the group.
> 
> I understand that the staff has yet to pick the staff person 
> who will be assigned to work with this group.
> 
> Once we know who all of the members from constituencies and 
> AC's in liasion are, we can start to arrange a schedule.  I 
> agree that we should have a first conversation next week and 
> that a face to face meeting would be useful if we can find a 
> time/place that fits everyones availability.
> 
> It makes sense for Glen to set up a mailing list for this 
> group as soon as possible.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 27 Jun 2008, at 10:04, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Fellow Councillors,
> > the Board has spoken and as any Board does when faced with 
> intractable 
> > issues, it has sent then back to the intractable 
> participants to sort 
> > out !
> > I exaggerate, the Board has given us a 4 week window to seek a 
> > compromise ourselves and I find that positive.
> >
> > I especially welcomed those Board members who commented 
> that working 
> > on principles and objectives first is more important than 
> the tool to 
> > implement those principles such as parity or the number of votes.
> >
> > I believe we should start our WG discussions looking at 
> options which 
> > meet the concerns of all parties, and then work out the 
> best tools to 
> > meet them.
> >
> > Avri, Glen - we need to move rapidly on this group and have 
> its first 
> > teleconference meeting next week  w/c June 30 - perhaps 
> July 2 at 1500 
> > UTC with weekly calls or more thereafter.
> > I suggest also a face to face of the small WG could be 
> useful towards 
> > its completion stage - perhaps in ICANN Brussels (or an Amsterdam 
> > Airport hotel) weekend of
> > 12-13 July  ?
> > Sorry to be presumptuous on dates but the timetable is very tight.
> >
> > I will be the BC representative.
> > Who are the other members?
> >
> > Philip
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>