As a WG chair, I can say with absolute certainty that I would not want to be responsible for determining if someone should be excluded. That decision will inevitably be challenged. If the decision is upheld, the time spent defending it is time I would rather spend on the WG's work under the SoW. If the decision is not upheld, it seems inevitable that allegations of bias will be levied. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:28 AM To: Ross Rader Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] Regarding working group membership Couln't we just leave this to the chair of the WG who could make a decision once it comes to it? Any decision that deals with "exluding" someone from participation is not easy and should be done with as much knowledge about the situation as possible. Best, tom Am 01.03.2007 schrieb Ross Rader:
On 1-Mar-07, at 7:53 AM, Cary Karp wrote:
If this applies without limit to the number of observers, a w.g. meeting can easily end up with an unmanageably large number of attendees.
I think we should cross that bridge if we come to it. I have seen many
fine examples where large numbers of participants are regularly able to create consensus and move forward. An able chair and a reasonable framework are the core requirements. We should try to ensure that both
of those conditions are present in our work, rather than optimize around inefficiencies such as poor frameworks and unable chairs at the
expense of broadening participation.
Ross Rader Director, Retail Services t. 416.538.5492 c. 416.828.8783 http://www.domaindirect.com
"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." - Erik Nupponen
Gruss, tom (__) (OO)_____ (oo) /|\ A cow is not entirely full of | |--/ | * milk some of it is hamburger! w w w w