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

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Bill,


> > 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.
>

an election will happen soon.


> 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
>

the issue is that we get the council agenda (with the motions) around
Thursday not so much time to discuss and one of the benefit of the NCSG
call is to discuss with the whole membership to let people know what is
happening. for motions, maybe some councillors can give us priority or
heads-up beforehand.
can we improve that? yes but that needs some additional workload.


> *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.
>

the call is already 2 hours and we cover working group and public comments
where there is things pressing or need our attention ( it is always in the
agenda ) and that is why I ask people to speak-up. adding 30 minutes may be
too much .


> 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.
>

if the PC members can have a monthly call to handle stuff that didn't move
quickly  in the mailing list, there is possible benefit.
acknowledging  that people are busy with many things, I think it is also
possible to react when needed e.g. agreeing on procedural stuff . currently
we don't have a statement to review or something similar, so workload is
not that much. we have kind of new PC so it is possible to let it
 functions fully.

Rafik

> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141123/a797587a/attachment-0001.html>