[PC-NCSG] Do we need to have a call?

[William Drake]

Hi

> On Nov 22, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> Folks, there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago about the need to have a regular call.  I think it is a good idea, others thought the list worked.  We have a number of things that need to be worked on, and some that need a decision.  Can someone please remind me of what they are?
> And if we are not going to have a meeting then perhaps a more vigorous discussion of things that need a decision would be a good idea.
> cheers Stephanie

On the Nov. 11 NCSG PC call I raised the chair topic and suggested that Amr would be great at this, since he?s both a process and a substance maven.  Avri suggested that given the workload and past experience with inconsistent chairing it?d be desirable to have a non-Councilor in the role (although then we have a chair elected by a constituency rather than the whole SG).  I?m not aware that the conversation has proceeded beyond this, has it?  It would seem pressing to resolve.

Re: establishing a second monthly NCSG PC call, I?m wondering if maybe we couldn?t first try to 

*make sure all PC members attend the one we already have
*unburden the agenda a little by having email exchanges in advance about the Council agenda so that the calls would only have to focus on the pressing and/or complicated items, rather than walk through every one of them
*when needed, add a half hour onto the extant calls to ensure adequate time for discussion of items beyond the next Council meeting, e.g. WS, public comments and other outputs.

It just seems to me that many of us already spend quite a bit of time on ICANN teleconferences, so before adding another to our regular diets we might want try to leverage the one we have.

Best

Bill