ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 13 August 2009

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 13 August 2009
  • From: Stephvg2 <stephvg2@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:46:17 +0200
  • Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:references:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :mime-version:subject:date:cc; bh=fokN5yLMuDY/SwaUTJ3tFps/ZekJWBqbxI7y9t3W238=; b=iD+fykzJMUk0izB83K0ZyOn6Wl6Kj8tcOm9gKScnGs4iPHVQRrbRhhGI15+MpUmizd JoRKNPlZ7GA6Pvc3yIxdWDuuxo7KnXFl8Rf+JIskzGZSkQhy08W72k0QgMJes8X7+9bC uYkp0dKM+ZoOvp2WWMPE1pl1ujQ4YXLWi8osY=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=references:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:cc; b=xUV0FkEOjKwR8psfRVMSzzk6e7ojiR+fGlTNISUh2WrKQfewndY6dYtJePLCGhCIrx 0P3aYZdhJIj2/Mzbti+pfXeWPTkGPiLclMW7hp7h2/kz1rpx9WeN8e+a5v5/C651v4cn ILKmKbAtxVLjZbbG3TmxfVgIDPxFiL4tOFsGI=
  • In-reply-to: <E99F358F-84AE-49AC-A15C-2D77C6576654@psg.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7AE0DAA5467@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <E129E200EA6742FAA717E89FDEB35439@PSEVO> <E99F358F-84AE-49AC-A15C-2D77C6576654@psg.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I like Philip (or is it Chuck's) suggestion. I would much prefer to have these status updates in advance and plan for shorter Council meetings as a consequence. It is always my feeling, when listening through these status updates during our meetings, that the people giving them are Reading from a written text anyway. If that impression is correct, then surely it would be no extra trouble to send to text to the Council list ahead of the meeting. I for one would find it easier to assimilate these status reports if they were sent as text rather than read aloud. And if that can mean a 1:30 hour long meeting instead of a 2 hour meeting, all those involved would probably gain.



Envoyé de mon iPhone

Le 10 août 2009 à 14:11, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :


While I appreciate the value of written status updates and agree that it would be good to have them I wonder whether they actually will save time. For people who read them, it will give them a chance to think through the status and have better questions - and this is a good effect. Yet there will always be people who did not have a chance to read them, so I believe we will still need to ask for a verbal report in most cases.


On 10 Aug 2009, at 07:57, Philip Sheppard wrote:

In the interest of time could we pursue the suggestion of Chuck (not for the first time) that basic status reports are provided in advance of the meeting in writing and subject to a Q and A at the meeting if any one has a question?

This would give time for the more pertinent updates on structure and charters
which will need to be discussed.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>