RE: [council] Meetings in LA

["Chicoine, Caroline" <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>]

This sounds reasonable to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Theresa Swinehart [mailto:Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 2:20 PM
To: 'Joe Sims'; council@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [council] Meetings in LA


I agree that we need to set up something. And at the Santiago NC meeting
(which in itself was a clear indication that something will be needed),
it
was evident that adoption of Roberts Rules in of themselves isn't
possible,
given the different kind of forum - i.e., electronic environment,
conference
calls, meetings, and many (including myself) not knowing them inside
out.
Instead something needs to be developed that perhaps takes from
different
rules, but creates something that works in the environment in which the
NC
operates.

Therefore, I have a suggestion. Instead of the council (which already
has
enough to do right now) trying to sort out a procedure that works, we
ask
the Berkman Center (e.g., Jonathan, if of course that's ok with him) to
work
with the NC members to develop and implement procedures for the
efficient
conduct of business at NC meetings. These procedures would be suggested
in
time for consideration and possible implementation at the next NC
meeting
(date still to be determined).

The reason I suggest the Berkman Center is that from what I understand
they
have experience and are familiar with the ICANN/multicultural/electronic
environment/conference call, and any other challenges that need to be
considered, and as far as I'm concerned those are criteria that are
needed
to develop something sooner than later. Seems to me we shouldn't spend
to
much time analyzing how to set up some procedures, but rather try to get
something moving forward soon. As I'm sure others also feel, it is
unacceptable for the NC to have another meeting like the last one and it
is
our responsibility to make sure it does not happen again.

I'd be interested in thoughts on the proposal to have an outside party
work
with the NC to develop procedures. I'm open to other suggestions of a
third
party that can be asked to do it, but would note that we shouldn't spend
too
much time on debating the method by which to get it done, but rather to
focus on getting it done and having a chance to review and see if its'
functional.

Thanks

Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of
Joe Sims
Sent:	Wednesday, September 01, 1999 8:49 AM
To:	council@dnso.org
Subject:	Re: [council] Meetings in LA




________________________________________________________________________
___
____

 This message is intended for the individual or entity named above.  If
you
are not the intended
 recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication
to
others; also please
 notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
your system.  Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________
___
____

The ICANN bylaws set up Robert's Rules as a default, which can be
replaced
by other rules of procedure by a majority vote of the particular body,
like
the NC.  In hindsight, this was probably an error to even establish a
default, and the NC should certainly feel free to exercise its right, by
majority vote, to create a simpler, easier to use for these purposes,
set
of procedures.