Hi, Just read the transcript of the August 4th call. Seems to have been a bit of confusion over a question raised during the EU-RALO call a few hours before. Sébastien mentioned that Bill Drake asked for clarification about text attributed to ALAC in staff's summary of charter public comments on the GNSO stakeholder charters. The staff summary says:
"Finally, although the majority of comments were strongly in support of returning to the original NCUC Charter version, ALAC favored the SIC's NCSG Charter that, ³best meets the aims of the new GNSO Model and the Boards criteria, which we support, and believe is (with the additional version changes as at July 19th ) being essentially met.² Continuing in this vein, ALAC noted, ³Maturity and development of the new design GNSO and specifically the parity and viability of the User House will benefit greatly with the fresh start°o this Charter in our opinion provides and it should be noted that in it we can see that the opinions and views brought forward in our processes, activities and meetings on the matter have been recognised, heard and considered.² "
(staff summary available here <http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-stakeholder-charters/msg00074.html>) Bill's question was: is this an official ALAC position? Yes or no. My view is if the answer's no we should ask staff to correct the summary. And inform the board as the summary was apparently the main information board members had before them when they voted on the stakeholder charters. Can we please be clear, yes or no. Cheryl, the transcript quotes you as saying: "And that would be where people such as Bill and Adam -- who would go back and read minutes -- would see a variance between what was recorded and what actually happened. That's why the minutes of the 28th of April 2009 need to be amended." I don't really understand the context of your remark, but you'll perhaps recall that in our May 26th call I commented on what I thought was the poor quality of the April 28th minutes. Once minutes are agreed we need to be careful about amending them without the committee being informed. I am beginning to think that summary minutes are still necessary. The transcripts (and recordings) are very useful, but they do not constitute a clear record of what action was taken, etc. Thanks, Adam