Re: [council] Meetings in LA

[Nigel Roberts <nigel@roberts.co.uk>]

> in via Real Audio, and commenting via IRC.  Overall the impression
> was very bad.  We appeared extremely disorganized, and I would

I don't think this is just the impression. This is the reality, IMO.


> 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. 


> I also think we should spend some time just amongst the
> Names Council members to try to get to know each other
> a little better - it is very important that we learn to work
> together.  

/This/ comment I strongly agree with. Perhaps a social 'get-to-know'
event
in LA on the Monday instead?


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

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.

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.

I was totally embarassed and amazed by the flurry of motions,
counter-motions
and amendments in Council, when only 2 or 3 people even understood
what an amendment actually is . (It is a formal proposal to change the
wording of an existing proposal, /not/ to make a new proposal,
unsurprisingly!).

We /really/ don't need this kind of thing, folks. 

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. 

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!


> 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.


> I felt that we all appeared disorganized and foolish, and I am neither
> a disorganized nor foolish person (at least I would like to hope so!)

Whatever the merits of individuals, the way the Names Council is
currently
working /is/ disorganized and foolish. 

This /must/ be fixed. 

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).

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!!

> Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

The above, and a /whole lot more/.

Kind regards



Nigel

--
Eur.Ing. NIGEL ROBERTS MBCS