RE: [nc-intake] Drfat report for NC meeting 17 August
Phil and all,
Hope you had a good week-end.
Here are my few comments:
Explicitly the IC should not comprise representatives from each NC
constituency for the following reasons:
I would prefere:
Explicitly the IC should not necessarily comprise representatives from each
NC constituency for the following reasons:
An IC e-mail address shall be created (Intake suggestions) whereby any of
the following persons can make proposals for NC agenda items:
* members of the Names Council
* the Names Council secretariat
* members of the ICANN Board
* members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the
firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com lists
* subscribers to an active DNSO ad hoc working group
What is the feeling of others about a "completely open" input, i.e. without
limitation to membership to lists or groups?
In any case, the GA has also a "voting membership", that is separate from
firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com> and from firstname.lastname@example.org
<mailto:email@example.com> . I think it should be included.
Points of information and normal interventions. At a physical meeting, an NC
member may raise a hand and wait to be recognised by the chair and during a
teleconference an NC member may speak in an appropriate gap and say
immediately "their name to speak". This will be noted by the chair who will
invite the intervention in due course.
What happened to Caroline's physical layout proposal? I thought nobody spoke