[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


You wrote:

> 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
with Council).
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.