so are they archived? at what url? does that "count"? On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 1:30 AM, William Drake < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi > > On Jul 31, 2010, at 7:14 AM, William Drake wrote: > > > Presumably NCSG will do a cll on 4 August, next Wednesday. We will need > to have a discussion there of the candidates for endorsement and get > community input for the Policy Committee with an eye to the 20 August > deadline for endorsements. So with apologies for the short time line, if in > the next 4 days people could have a look at the candidates that would help. > We could also usefully have some discussion in advance here on the list, if > the candidates would care to share their respective pitches on why they're > the right people for the jobs etc. > > As you may recall, in Brussels the Council passed a NCSG motion requiring > that all Council calls be audiocast in real time on the web. Useful in > terms of general transparency and accountability, but also operationally for > us, as NCSGers can Skype chat with their Councilors during the session to > provide input on votes etc. > > Since passage of the motion there's been some post hoc push-back from the > registrars about why do we need to do this, the $60 per session is too > expensive (!) and not all that many people care to listen in anyway (not > supported by the numbers thus far). I guess this combines a) the usual > contracted party claim that ICANN's paying for stuff with "their money" > (rather than the money of registrants), and b) a desire by some councilors > not to have their SG listening in as Council performs its alchemy. > > It would be good to be able to say the audiocasts are valued by the > community as demonstrated by the numbers so please drop the post hoc attack. > To that end, it'd be helpful if people could log in to the audiocast. I > suppose if you're not particularly interested in what we happen to be > discussing in a given session you could just turn off the volume and let it > run in background while you're doing whatever else. I'd be surprised if a > vote to repeal the decision were to pass, but it'd be better to take this > off the table before it attracts more adherents. > > Best, > > Bill