ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 13 August 2009
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:49:01 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <51C4AE0C-0E2D-4FF1-AB93-58F205B03CA3@gmail.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcoZwSKThm4WmgnvTqWvvib/jyzrKQAABIJA
  • Thread-topic: [council] Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 13 August 2009

Agree 100% with Stéphane, Philip and Chuck.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stephvg2
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 9:46 AM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed GNSO Council Agenda 13 August 2009

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 :

> Hi,
> 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.
> a.
> 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.
>> Philip

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