Re: [council] Meetings in LA

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

i too was not at all pleased with the atmosphere nor the results of our last
meeting and
i agree with many of your concerns here Nigel...

i do feel that your "american-centric" comment is totally out-of-place and
inappropriate here. (i will assume that you are speaking personally and not
for the CCTLD constituancy here)

for your edification..here is a straight cut-and-paste  from the dictionary
for the definition of "Parliamentarian" :

Main Entry: par·lia·men·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: "pär-l&-"men-'ter-E-&n, -m&n- also "pärl-y&-
Function: noun
Date: 1644
1 often capitalized : an adherent of the parliament in opposition to the
king during the English Civil War
2 : an expert in the rules and usages of a deliberative assembly (as a
parliament)
3 : a member of a parliament

please note item # 2

the term is a "british" origin with a history of over 350 years

ken stubbs
p.s. frankly the council using someone like this should be an absolute  last
resort and i don't think it is necessary at this point either. i have
absolute confidence that this kind of situation will not be allowed to occur
in the future.


----- Original Message -----
From: Nigel Roberts <nigel@roberts.co.uk>
To: Richard Lindsay <richard@interq.ad.jp>
Cc: Names Council <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: [council] Meetings in LA


> > 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
>
>