DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[wg-review] Informal Teleconference Briefing, 2001. 1. 23

Derek wrote:
> disappointment in the scheduling of the teleconference.  

Yes, indeed. It really enlightened us again how difficult it is 
to implement consensus process even among less than 200 folks.

Two problems noted.

1. Budget or Money problem: This is unavoidable reality.
    Look at many developing countries who cannot afford themselves
    in the most ICANN and DNSO meetings even though they know 
    the importance of Internet Governance.

2. Time Arrangement: This can be solvable by mutual understanding
    if this can be coordinated better later.

> In reviewing the teleconference related communication, it appeared to 
> me that there was no focus, whatsoever, regarding the teleconference.

That's why this has been proposed and carried out.
Two issues are discussed.[More details are supposed to be circulated.]

1. Managed Discussion under "oversight" by some volunteers.

i.e. Jan XX - Jan XX : Constituency discussion only
      Jan XX - Feb XX : GA discussion only
      Feb XX - Feb XX:  Names Council discussion only
      Feb XX - Feb. XX: Overall discussion on Constituency, GA, NC
      Feb XX - Feb XX:  Motion and Voting and Recommendation

[Note] Many have expressed that it is very difficult to follow the whole
           threads and difficult to respond to.

2. To improve communication mechanism to reduce confusion.

News group or server approach under DNSO secretariat's cooperation
has been suggested by Roeland, which will be more adequately described 
by him later in the list.

The whole background is to let people have more undertsanding on what's
going on this list when people try to.

> I was also wondering what the parties here were going to discuss during
> the teleconference while subject matters have yet to be worked out 
> through the email process.

Yes, it's true. This teleconference has tried to come up with more
doable or workable approach to this group so that WG-Review can
recah its destination asap cutting its shortcut if it's ever possible.

> I suggest that matters be discussed via email until there is an agenda
> and until certain subject matters are crystallized.  

Hope the managed discussion will get us there soon.

> Then hold a teleconference.

And then we can reach our second stage to solve another task.

BTW, fyi. [Formal meeting minutes is supposed to be circulated
after being vetted by participants and then circulated to the list.]
Greg, Roeland and Joanne volunteered to do that.

Participants are Greg Burton, Danny Younger, Roeland Meyer,
Joanne Lane, Peter de Blanc, Rob Juno, Elisabeth Porteneuve,
YJ Park.

Time Duration: 21:00 - 24:00 3 hours Singapore time.

Motion made by YJ Park: 

YJ Park, the current chair of WG-Review designated by NC, is going 
to ask NC to recognize newly elected WG-Review co-chair, as formal 
chair of WG-Review and YJ Park as liaison chair of WG-Review from
NC which has been well-established practice in the DNSO.


This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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