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
)

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

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann...

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac