[council] Report on Berkman Center Proposals

[Richard Lindsay <richard@interq.ad.jp>]

Fellow NC Reps,

I regret the delay in posting, I was hoping to get some more last
minute comments.  This mail is my attempt at consolidating
comments made by Philip, Dennis and myself.  If I have omitted
anything, or am inaccurate in any way, please feel free to jump
in and correct me :-)

OK, here it is:

Overall, we recommend implementing the procedures proposed
by the Berkman Center with the following additions, or clarifications:

1.  For the physical meetings propose to add a generic "to be
recognized" colored card such that:

white card - normal intervention
yellow card - as Berkman
red card - as Berkman.

The view was that the cards do provide a better visual indication to the

chair than a hand alone, and allow the chair to choose the priority of a

red card over other interventions.

2.  For teleconferences adopt the following procedures:

In order to participate, use the verbal equivalent of the colored
card system by stating your name and saying aloud:

to speak - normal intervention = "white card"
for information = "yellow card"
for procedure = "red card"

In addition, recommend that the chair make a point of going through
the roster of teleconference attendees at the conclusions of
discussion on each agenda item to request comments.  (This is
my comment that I have not asked the group about yet, but
as it has worked well in practice so far, I suggest making it
formal procedure.)

3.  With regard to the Intake Committee, the following is proposed:

a.  Membership:  3 members made up of the GA Chair and 2 designated
members of the Names Council.  The term would be for 1 year, and during
that time, there would not be rotations among the NC members.

(While I had suggested having the NC Secretariat participate in the
place of the 2nd NC member - in order to not have the body NC
dominated - the majority felt this was not an appropriate task for
the Secretariat.)

2.  Methodology:

a.  Input:  a separate "comments@dnso.org" alias would be established
with no limitations on posting.  Thus any GA member, working group
member,
or even outsider could post to comments for review by the Intake
Committee.
If email posts become too difficult to manage, a "form submission" on
the DNSO
web site with mandatory fields should be set up.  This  would also allow
direct
submission to each member of the Intake Committee (a special mail box if
they
choose) and protect them from spam.

b.  Intake:  The Intake Committee would review the comments mails at
least one week prior to any NC meetings or teleconferences (this may be
done via teleconference, or simply by email) and submit a condensed list
of
issues to be submitted and discussed by the NC.  The IC would have no
position to comment on the validity of the posts, but rather just to
organize
them in a succinct manner such that the NC could review them
in one sitting during a meeting.

c.  Reporting:  It would be beneficial and in keeping with the goals of
transparency
and openness to have the Intake Committee submit their results to both
the NC,
posted to the DNSO home page, and emailed to the GA list as well.

/End

I look forward to discussing this later this week, if the agenda
permits.

Best regards,
Richard
--
_/_/_/interQ Incorporated
_/_/_/System Division
_/_/_/Director and General Manager
_/_/_/Richard A. S. Lindsay