<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">
<div>I’m concerned that my outline of a full WG approach to our work as opposed to subteams was not as clear as I wanted. Some very interesting things were going on in chat and I made the mistake of trying to read and talk at the same time. Please contribute
by voice if you can. I think that the interaction is better and I’m not sure that everybody reads the transcript later (sorry, Nathalie).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mary, Marika, Steve, Graeme, and I looked at comments on the list and shared our experiences. The high points:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Committee of the Whole</div>
<div>Allows everyone to be involved</div>
<div>Is particularly appropriate when issues don’t separate cleanly</div>
<div>Avoids problems that subteams create when a WG member wants to be on multiple teams or can’t devote the time to subteams and the full WG</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Subteams</div>
<div>Is good for people who have specific interest or expertise and want to focus their efforts</div>
<div>Works best when major issues don’t overlap much</div>
<div>Can add efficiency in that topics are split out for concurrent analysis instead of the WG tackling them in sequence</div>
<div>Add staff burden and the possibility of failure points if subchairs or members don’t follow through</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We decided to start with a Committee of the Whole approach because we have some overarching issues to address. In addition, as we saw today and on prior calls, dividing topics may not be so easy when we get into section discussions. However, the WG can
decide later whether we want to create smaller groups and, if so, how to do it. ICANN WGs have used many different models.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Don</div>
</body>
</html>