[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [council] Re: [ga] Meeting Schedule of General Assembly in Los Angeles on November 2
> 2. The Working Groups should decide themselves whether
> or not they will meet. For example, WGA has finished its
> report and will not meet. WGD will meet. The Names Council
> should not dictate that the WG must meet - although optimally
> we should provide a time slot, a place, and announce when they
> will meet so that anyone can attend to observe or participate.
Maybe I am interpreting the agenda incorrectly, but the slot for WGs is
exactly what is missing.
WG meetings will either overlap with Constituency meetings or with GA (or
The only possibility I see is to have the Council meeting (that involves in
principle less people) at a less convenient timing, like the evening of
> Since many of us are coming to LA (from great distances) just
> for these meetings, I don't see an alternative to meetings that
> go after 5:00pm...
But that should be for Council (or at worse for WGs), not for GA.
> Younjung Park wrote:
> > Here is the decision just made in the Names Council Teleconference,
I wonder why we lose time in the GA mailing lists to reach consensus if
everything is decided by the Council regardless the input.
;>) or :>( - depending on POV
> > <snip>
> > Newly-elected 19 Board members will review on the ICANN
> vs NSI vs DoC
> > Contract.
Newly-elected 19 Board members?!?
I suppose you mean the 10 old + the 9 new ones.