Introduction and Roll Call by Co-Chairs (Jim Tobias & Mike Paciello)
The TEITAC 10A teleconference started with co-chairs Jim Tobias and Mike Paciello going over the agenda, then taking roll of the callers. The call was delayed in starting for 30 minutes due to problems with the telephone bridge. Eventually, members were able to connect on two lines and the call commenced. It was determined that a quorum was not present, but the members present elected to proceed with discussion anyway, so that they could have a series of recommendations for the full committee to consider when the next face-to-face meeting commenced on January 7, 2008.
The protocols followed for this teleconference were the same as those for other official TEITAC teleconferences: roll was taken, a public comment period was reserved for members of the general public to comment during the last 15 minutes of the meeting, and committee members spoke at all other times.
Consensus Provision Review – Reference the following items from the November 27, 2007 draft report: [See: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Nov_27 ]
Co-chair Jim Tobias led the discussion on the agenda. In the interest of efficiency, it was agreed that the members present on the call would attempt to identify those matters and definitions where there was little dispute and the greatest current likelihood of consensus. Those particular items will then be identified as such to the full committee at the face to face meeting, January 7-9, 2008.
Extensive discussion was held on this proposed Exception. It was noted that the language had been referred to the full committee for consideration without ever being fully debated by the Subpart A subcommittee, since the proposed exception was submitted to the Subcommittee at a very late date, after the bulk of the subcommittees had reported their work to the full committee. Accordingly, the Subpart A subcommittee referred the draft exception to the full committee for discussion. During the call, several members spoke out against the provision, warning that it appeared to be likely to reduce the coverage and scope of Section 508. After extensive discussion, Co-chair Mike Paciello moved that the members present recommend that the exception be rejected, and that this view be communicated to the full committee at the face to face meeting January 7-9, 2008. No objections were raised, and no member present spoke in favor of the exception when the question was called by Mr. Paciello.
During discussion, Committee members Gregg Vanderheiden and Rob Nerhood asked that discussion on this definition be deferred, since a subset of the Committee already planned to meet by teleconference on Friday, January 4, 2008, to discuss wording on these provisions in detail. It was agreed to defer discussion on these provisions, pending the fuller discussion to be held on Friday, January 4, 2008. The results of the Friday discussion will be reported to the full Committee at the January 7-9, 2008 face to face meeting.
A public comment period was held. Tom Brett requested clarification on the status of the proposed Public Responder exception. It was explained that, while the committee members present on the call had recommended that the proposed exception be rejected from the report, that decision could only be made by a quorum of the full committee.
Summation and Concluding Comments (Jim Tobias and Mike Paciello)
The Co-chairs thanked the members for their patience and participation during the day’s call. Members were reminded to review materials prior to the face to face meeting next week: 1. the current draft of the Committee Report, dated November 27, 2007; and 2. The agenda. These materials will be supplied in accessible formats, and will also be posted online before the meeting. The next face to face meeting of the full committee will commence at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, January 7, 2008 at the National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia.
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.