RE: [council] Proposed NC Procedure from Berkman Center

["Ben Edelman" <edelman@law.harvard.edu>]

YJ wrote:

> 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

I believe the fourth slide ("Members Vote Online") at
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso/ncprocedure/slides.html> addresses
this topic.  In particular, it says:

"We suggest that the intake committee post proposals online by three full
weeks before the meeting in order to assure that Names Council members have
sufficient time to read the proposals and vote on them.   ... After the
voting, two weeks before the meeting, the Chair will compute the results of
the voting and the resulting ordering of proposals on the agenda.  These
results should be posted online as soon as possible, at least ten days
before the meeting.  The Names Council members will use the remaining time
to familiarize themselves with the issues to be discussed."

Do you think we need further specifics beyond these suggested time-frames?
I tend to think to think the above sufficient.

> 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?

There are details on the proposed Intake Committee in the "Highlights of the
Process" section under heading "Before the Meeting: Setting the Agenda."
I'll repeat them below.  (Note that slides 3 and 4 of the PowerPoint
presentation also discuss this subject.)

"Setting the agenda for future meetings is one area in which we made
considerable changes.  The foremost change is our requirement to have
proposals to consider a topic submitted in writing to an Intake Committee
and having a small quorum of Names Council members vote them into the
agenda. (All other proposals must be submitted in writing to the Chair who
will then and them to the agenda, either as separate items or under one of
the standard agenda items.)  We understand that this procedure adds another
layer to the preparations for each meting, but we believe that our suggested
procedure is worth the work. For suggesting topics of discussion early gives
members more time to consider upcoming issues.  Furthermore, written
submission of proposals encourages thoughtful formulation and allows for
friendly suggestions on wording and substance before the meeting takes
place.  We also believe that the meeting will run more smoothly and
efficiently if proposals to consider a topic have already been formulated in
a way that encourages debate over the substance of the topic rather than
over its form.  Finally, if proposals to consider a topic as well as the
actual agenda are posted online, interested stakeholders will have more time
to understand what the Names Council is doing, thereby enhancing
transparency.  This will encourage interested observers to attend Names
Council meetings, building trust between the interested parties, and
ultimately adding to ICANN’s credibility and effectiveness as a governing
organization."


> 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".

I believe that's a correct statement of what we suggest.

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

The list (suppressed in this message) is meant to include all
non-substantive administrative agenda items -- everything from hiring a
secreteriat to arranging for teleconferences and so forth.

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

I'll see that this is fixed immediately.


Ben Edelman
Berkman Center