ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] intake committee proposal


Ken, thanks for your comments on the IC set of recommendations. They are most helpful. My comments follow.
-----------------------------------------
<the mandate of this Committee?>
As the IC has its origins in the Berkman proposal we thought it helpful to make recommendations to the NC based on the scope of the proposals.
 
<Objectives: The Chair and Secretariat should prepare the agenda. The IC should provide input, but the agenda itself, and running of the meetings is the responsibility of the Chair.>
We saw the IC as an assistant to the NC Chair. If the IC is only a postbag, could this not ALL be handled by a secretariat?
 
 
<Timing: Given the nature of the process, 21 days is far too long of a time period to cut off proposed agenda items. It would seem that 10 days is much more practical.>
21 days is long. We got there by working back. What period of notice does the NC want to see an agenda? We recommended 14 days to give time to consult constituencies (then added 7 days for the IC to put an agenda together).
 
 
<I would also suggest that the so-called ic e-mail concept will quickly become another forum for expression and potential abuse. i frankly do not feel it need be publicly archived>
I agree, there is potential for abuse.
 
 
<Contributors:Why would we not include ICANN staff>
Good point - they should be added.
 
 
<Members: I am a bit confused here ... are you proposing that non NC members be included on the IC ? >
We recommend the IC comprise a small number of NC members plus the GA chair.
 
 
<Rules for proposing an agenda for NC meetings: This section, at first blush, sounds like an extensive filtering system. Proposals to the agenda should be possible through the IC, and forwarded to the Chair. In almost every organization I have ever been involved with it is the Chair who is responsible for prioritizing the agendas and determining the significance of items to be discussed. >
This is a good point. We saw the IC as an assistant to the Chair. It is a big burden for a volunteer chair to: prioritise an agenda, set guillotines, post to the NC in time, co-ordinate posting of reports etc.
If the IC does not add value by creating the agenda, what is its role?  The status of the IC agenda could be an agenda proposed to the NC chair who would have the last say. (Note this involves extra time and needs to be built into the timetable).
 
 
<Rules for running the NC meetings need to be discussed ....(and)...need to be the product of input from the entire NC>
We agree, we are making a recommendation for discussion by the NC.  This section is intentionally separated from the first section. It is based on the Berkman proposals which have been approved by the NC. This section, more or less, summarises the way we have been running meetings up to now. It seemed helpful to have it written down.
 
 
Hope this has helped clarify the thinking of the IC group behind the ideas in the report.
 
Philip
 


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>