Re: [council] Agenda for GA meeting, Santiago Chile

[Fay Howard <fay@ripe.net>]

Javier

You may have misunderstood my message. 
I am perfectly aware that the Names Council get to vote.  I repeat, for your clarification, that my remark concerns your authority to decide what the DNSO may discuss. The GA does not get to vote but was created so that all in the community may contribute and be heard. I suggested that the  NC would do well to listen to the wishes of the General Assembly as the NC role is to measure consensus in the community. It is also te case that many GA participants also belong to the constituencies represented by the NC members. 

To clarify my position on the time scale of the GA.  I believe it should be an all-day meeting but on hearing the logistical problems raised by ICANN staff, agreed to pass their message back to those pushing for a longer time scale. If a little extra time can be found at the end of the day, that it fine witih me.

I will not respond to the unfortunate and unhelpful accusations you make against the ccTLD constituency. 
 
Fay


At 02:31 PM 8/17/99 +0200, you wrote:

>
>>> The DNSO does not discuss the DNSO chair. The chair is elected by the NC.
>
>>Surely, it is not for you or the NC to decide what the DNSO discusses.
>The GA
>>is entitled to debate this issue whether it gets a vote or not and a good NC
>>would be listenting to that debate not silencing it. 
>
>The bylaws state how the DNSO works, and it is very clear that the NC
>decides about the Chair of the DNSO. 

 
>There is no reason I can see for the ccTLD constituency to try to push
>otherwise, except trying to have the GA push for a Chair that the ccTLDs

>want elected, because they believe that the NC will not elect him and hope
>that a push from the GA will... I really think that this is not a good line
>of discussion, please do not force it.

I could not possibly force this discussion as I have no idea what you are referring to.  The ccTLD constituency has no objective here but to have an properly assembled GA which debates all areas of policy with a Names Council that measures consensus in that community.

>I would also like to remind you that the ccTLD constituency is not the GA,
>That item has not been placed there by the GA but by the ccTLD constituency. 
>
>>>> 16:00 Review of Working Groups
>>>> Working Groups established by the Interim Names Council
>>>> Working Groups proposed at public informal meeting held after Berlin 
>>>> DNSO General Assembly
>>>> (Objective: to scope the current work of the DNSO and to establish 
>>>> who is already involved and working on the issues identified. To 
>>>> identify current working group leaders and members.)
>>>
>>>
>>> The informal meeting organized in Berlin by the ccTLDs should NOT be
>>> mentioned in the agenda. Strong objection.
>
>>Why shouldn't the Berlin meeting of the DNSO community be mentioned?  Many
>>turned up to this including a good percentage of those now sitting in the
>Names
>>Council. Some constructive debate was generated in a true bottom-up spririt. 
>>THe NC is not an executive body and is there to listen to the DNSO
>community at
>>large.
>
>I have nothing against constructive ideas being brought forward. I object
>to the agenda giving preferece to the ones stated in the meeting organized
>by your organization (CENTR) in Berlin. All ideas should be given equal
>weight. There is no reason to act otherwise.
>
>My main objection, in general, is to have a constituency, or a member of
>it,  try to push its interests by manipulating the GA agenda, and claim
>that it is for the good of the GA.
>
>>> Closing at 19:00 is far too late. If we take these two issues out we could
>>> get back to the original plan of finishing at 18:00, (discussion starts at
>>> 16:30 or 17:00, instead of 18:00).
>
>>As the time allocated to this meeting is rather limited I support the 19.00
>>finish.  People are travelling a long way and only get to meet physically
>a few
>>times per year.  There are many items on the agenda and I am sure we can
>manage
>>an extra hour of work
>
>You accepted the stated time-frame in a NC meeting. The NC has not voted to
>change it.
>
>The agenda cannot be published until it complies with the bylaws and prior
>decisions of the NC.
>
>Javier
>