Re: [council] Proposed NC Procedure from Berkman Center

[Younjung Park <yjpark@aptld.org>]

Dear Edelman and others who have worked hard on this,

Truly appreciating all your great job here in the form of "procedural rules",
I would like to add one small thing regarding "setting the agenda before the
meeting" and ask something I can't quite understand.

First, could you come up with more specific time-frame with agenda to
make Names Council consider each item with realistic time-scale?
	i.e. agenda a week in advance

Second, this is the first time for me to hear of "Intake Committee"
which might be well explained in the power point file, however it's sort of
difficult to be read. Could you let me know this with more details?

For the last, I just want to make this sure whether my interpretation is right.

The procedural rules said,

These proposals, not requiring consideration of a topic, can be added to 
the agenda independently or in conjunction with "standard agenda items".

[snip]

Proposals not constituting proposals to consider a topic could relate to any oneof the following items:
	outstanding electoral issues
	internal administration
	budget
	forthcoming teleconferences and meetings
	forthcoming plenary meeting
	other business
	Q&A from the public

[snip]

Therefore those above-mentioned items can be added on the very spot of 
the meeting whenever they are submitted in the form of writing?

One more thing about this,
what do you mean by "other business" and "internal administration"
in this context? 

Expecting your more clear-cut clarification on this,
Thank all of you again for your wonderful job.


Regards,

YJ Park

PS: My full name is like this: Park, Youn Jung instead of Park, Youn:-)

> Members of the Names Council,
> 
> The students working at the Berkman Center on proposed procedures for Names
> Council Meetings asked me to forward the following text to you:
> 
> "Thank you for inviting us to participate and contribute in your efforts to
> come up with a workable Domain Name System.  We hope to facilitate the
> objectives of the Names Council, namely, advising the ICANN Board with
> respect to policy issues relating to the Domain Name System.  We have
> therefore provided a set of procedural rules that the Names Council can
> adhere to when formulating consensus recommendations.  Enclosed are our
> suggestions for the Names Council meeting procedures, as well as our
> conception of how the Names Council formulates recommendations and presents
> them to the ICANN board.  While the rest of this package will explain in
> detail the procedures we suggest and why we urge their adoption, this brief
> letter will attempt to highlight some of the themes and policies that
> underlie our choices and motivate our reasoning.  We hope you find these
> comments and procedures to be helpful as you tackle the DNS issues ahead."
> 
> They've prepared a detailed set of documents proposing specific methods of
> conducting Names Council meetings; rather than send you the surprisingly
> large Word documents and PowerPoint presentations as attachments, I've
> posted them online at
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso/ncprocedure/>.
> 
> When you make comments, as I'm sure you will since these documents remain a
> work in progress, I suggest that you cc the following list (me, Jonathan
> Zittrain, Andrew McLaughlin, and the specific students involved:
> edelman@law.harvard.edu, zittrain@law.harvard.edu, mclaughlin@pobox.com,
> acoppedg@law.harvard.edu alim@law.harvard.edu, hvandert@law.harvard.edu;
> sfatima@law.harvard.edu.
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Edelman
> Berkman Center