Scribe: Anne-Kathrin Orth
G. Geographic Diversity / Waivers (Abril i Abril)
Discuss on mailing list
H. Proceedings for future meetings
Need agendas MUCH earlier, should plan meetings properly
Cohen: Will only chair Los Angeles First Annual Meeting if properly prepared, set up small group to develop SIMPLE rules (not as American as Robert`s rules of order) for holding the NC-meetings.
Swinehart: get neutral third party to help with procedural guidelines - short timeframe of two weeks, regular discussions to achieve result
Schneider: don’t want external person conducting NC-meetings
Lindsay: have posted a comment to this on the webpage; should vote online on documents, focus on Robert’s Rules to come to consensus, work less off-the-fly)
Jennings: need some procedures, simple, documents in advance; volunteer to give $10,000 to have a consultant help with setting up procedures (preferably PwC) - e.g. phone up the constituencies to get a feel for their needs and try to combine them all into procedures all can agree to.
Swinehart: Should be sufficient to use the internal resources of people experienced in conducting meetings in different parts of the world
Abril i Abril: Who prepares meetings? Who takes the responsibility??
Schneider: should be assigned to someone permanent, like a secretary or secretary general
Cohen: volunteer with Jennings to prepare Los Angeles, would like a non-English-native to join them.
Sola: need chair to be responsible (send out agenda 1 week in advance...), take care of secretarial issues for the next meeting (conference call!!)
Cohen: the IPC will take on that "secretarial" task until L.A. (the constituency, not him in person)
Roberts: possibly external person, someone neutral in the long term (general disagreement)
Sola: propose Jennings as chair for the next meeting (all agree)
I. Discussion of calendar: postponed
J. Back to Procedures
Nii alone was too much for chairing the GA-meeting, 2 chairs are needed: one to guide the audience along the agenda and one to handle the audience emotionally. Should long-term chair be elected?
Schneider: should generally discuss the whole format of the GA-meetings. Need one dedicated chair (and one member of the NC); as a format, the ICANN open meetings should work, all NC-members should be present to be able to answer questions (part of the role of representative!)
Sola: final NC will elect the chair of the GA who will then chair those meetings
Cohen: reasonable rules will solve most of the current problems; some of the NC-members have lots of experience in chairing meetings, yet the individual constituencies should still rotate (perception of preventing capture) – should identify the people in each constituency that are experienced;
Telage: chair has to be neutral, above the activities and discussions without contributing (difficult!) - the person selected has to be willing to disengage from active participation except for voting
Cohen: 1) not supposed to be extremely formal, Consensus most important
2) there are still two other representatives of the chairing constituency to sufficiently represent those interests
Abril i Abril: is someone willing to take the responsibility? The permanent chair of the GA? Will the new NC be in place by L.A.?
Schneider: we need an interim chair (to be chosen in the next conference call)
Abril i Abril: sometimes vote for things, often missing reference to procedures, DNSO-secretariat needs to be informed, have someone appointed as a reference point, e.g. the chair
Stubbs: need coordinator who distributes material in time; should set down a budget to employ someone 6-10 hrs. A week sufficient for the next 120-180 days, salary of something like $750-1000
Cohen: essential, ICANN had the advantages of meeting privately to prepare the open meeting and of disposing of good, qualified staff (both very effective!) to get order into the procedures
Abril i Abril: last urgent issues: next cc
Agreed on: Wednesday, September 15th, 3pm CET (enough time for WG-D to either come up with some sort of solution or not...), CORE is setting up the call bridge until a budget / business plan is in place
As a huge amount of expenses is accumulating, should find out soon where we stand.
Telage: put it on the agenda for the next cc.
Abril i Abril: any other points that need discussion?
Swinehart: business plan is originally responsibility of WG-D, but as it is not progressing quickly enough should consider taking it back into the NC-responsibilities
Sola: there was never a proposal, not even by Roberts, for a suitable procedure
Shapiro: we’re provisional and should not be putting everything in place that will last for longer terms
VOTE: 6:3:7 (fails!)
Sola: motion: NC should accept the dates proposed by ICANN
Stubbs: can motions be made on the list if receiving a proper second, substantial discussion, can they be voted on electronically? (general disagreement)
QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION
Teernstra: Having witnessed the proceedings of this meeting, I believe the NC would benefit from having (certain) three additional members