> What are the views of the rest of the present intake
No opinion about the card system, but the general feeling that it may be a
Composition (3 members vs. 1 per Constituency).
I think that the primary question is "what is the purpose", and composition
Should the IC "filter" and "prioritize" input, or just pass it on to the NC
without adding value? What is the likelyhood of the NC be flooded by a
multitude of requests to put items on the agenda, and therefore the need for
Personally, I am in favour of a "safety valve", also because I think that we
cannot reasonably restrict the input.
In other words, my philosophy is:
- the NC *is* the focal point for DNSO policy recommendations, and therefore
it *must* accept input from "the world" about DNSO-policy-related items;
- some parsing is needed, in order to separate substantial policy issues to
be discussed by the NC from comments/suggestions or just plain
- all input (accepted for NC discussion or rejected) should be logged and if
possible publicly posted, together with motivation of decision (if
applicable) with the possible exception of offensive postings;
- the IC operates by email, and only in exceptional cases by teleconference
(please note that there may be the need for a special case for the NC F2F
meetings at ICANN's conferences, because matters may arise in Constituency
meetings on the previous day, or GA in the morning, ant there will be the
need for an F2F IC meeting at lunch to propose amendments to the agenda of
the afternoon NC);
- given the discretional power of the NC, it will be wise to have all
Constituencies + GA represented, while for WGs it is assumed that they can
have a voice via Constituencies or GA.
But my main point is that we should first agree on "what" the IC does before
discussing the "how".
About the shape of the F2F NC meetings, I also prefere Caroline's layout of
the scene over the current "Last Supper" coreography.