Re: [council] Meetings in LA

[Richard Lindsay <richard@interq.ad.jp>]

Nigel, fellow pNC members

> > 1.  An additional day of meeting in LA for discussion solely of
> > procedural issues
>
> I strongly disagree.
>
> One of the online public comments asked why we were
> -- in the Names Council -- trying to do the work of Committee D.
> Furthermore, we are all busy people with day jobs in addition.
>
> I think adding an extra whole day of meetings would be /very/
> counterproductive.

Well, perhaps Committee D should arrange to meet, and if so
I would certainly be willing to help out if this were positive.
If Committee D does come up with guidelines for how the Names
Council and all other DNSO functions work, I think we should
spend some time as a group trying to figure out how to
actually implement them.  We are not going to magically figure
out how to work as a group by osmosis, unfortunately.  I think
it is worth the time - I am busy as well, but I think this is
important.

>  Perhaps a social 'get-to-know' eventin LA on the Monday instead?
>

I am all for it, although I still think some time discussing procedure,
or the recommendation of Committee D is worthwhile.


> > 2.  IF we decide we are going to use parliamentary rules such
> > as Robert's Rules of Order, than I strongly urge that we consider
> > Theresa's proposal to bring in a parliamentarian to help us
> > with our process.
>
> I have a problem with this.  As it stands the ICANN bylaws require we
> use these.

I don't understand this.  Does it say anywhere in the ICANN bylaws
the Names Council has to use RROR?  I don't recall this.

> They are even unfamiliar to me as a native English speaker (and a former
> parliamentary candidate!!!).

They are completely foreign to me as well - even though I have
gone over them on paper before each of the meetings after the
San Jose event.

> As things stand I feel they are very exclusionary to people of different
> cultures, even a culture as (relatively speaking) close to the US as my
> own.

Completely agree.

> What we actually need is a very simple set of Standing Orders, written
> in the sort of English which would get a Crystal Mark from the Plain
> English Campaign
> so they are easy to understand by everyone, not just those from the US.

Would you be willing to help out writing some with Theresa and
the other members of Committee D?

What we /should/ be doing in Council is discussing, in a atmosphere of

> co-operation and good will, the work being carried out in the DNSO and
> then making decisions based on recommendations put to us IN ADVANCE and
> WITH SUFFICIENT NOTICE for consideration and consultation.

I agree with this.

> It is unfair and wrong to make up proposals on the fly inside the
> meeting and then vote on them. Consultation and reference back to one's
> constituents
> is important in many cultures -- mine as well!

Makes sense to me.

> > I know Michael Schneider was opposed to having a parliamentarian
> > sit in on a meeting of the Names Council, but I think it would
> > be an excellent idea.
>
> Can someone explain what a "parliamentarian" is supposed to mean in this
> context? In my own language (British English) it means 'Member of
> Parliament'
> I imagine this must be yet another US-centric concept.
>
> I have spent a lot of time on the board of another large non-profit
> (non-Internet) corporation with a multi-million pound turnover and I
> think what you are describing is the job of the Chairman!!!
>
> So what you are actually saying is we need a permanent Chairman who can
> do the job of a Chairman, it seems to me.

Well perhaps we do need a permanent Chairman, but what I was
referring to was someone who was very well versed in Parliamentary
rules (which I am certainly not) who could help guide the discussion
in a more orderly manner.  Perhaps the term "referee" would be
more accurate, but I was thinking of someone who we could refer
to when there where questions of order, or could say - "hey, you
are not supposed to amend that now...?"  That is all, they would
not be able to sway the discussion, offer substantial opinion,
vote or get involved in the debate.

>
> This, and only this, is the /only/ work item we should be considering
> right now.
> (In other words the work of WG-D and nothing else).

If that is the case, then we all should join the working group,
and perhaps discuss this in person before the next meeting...
Because I agree that we must fix this - and not just hope that
Committee D will come up with some magic rules.

> As just one example I am astounded by the fact that the Names Council
> has now formally refused to consider doing anything about the fact that
> we are obliged to have a grievance procedure and we are in breach of
> that!!

I believe putting the grievance procedure before the procedure
is not necessary.  This should be worked out along with the
overall procedures and other discussions of Committee D.

> > Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
>
> The above, and a /whole lot more/.

Well, no time like the present!  Can we handle a discussion of this
type on this mailing list?  I think we should.

Regards,
Richard
--
_/_/_/interQ Incorporated
_/_/_/System Division
_/_/_/Director and General Manager
_/_/_/Richard A. S. Lindsay