Re: [council] NC task forces compositionIssue

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Philip wrote:

> YJ, a year or so ago we had no rules. We now have a set of them to help
> make our processes more effective. Lets try them out. If they work - good.
> If they prove to be an obstacle - we can change them.

Philip, Thank you for your explanation regarding TF composition procedure
and I do sympathize with you the fact you pointed out.

However, when people say rules, as far as I know, the rules should be
"consistent" and "accountable". If the rule itself lack "Stability", it is
very
difficult to get agreed and followed by the constituency.

Here are the potential "inconsistency" and "instability" I can find easily.

>[Issue 1] "An ICANN-relevant organisation is defined as one that
>any NC member considers to be ICANN-relevant".

>This definition is intentional - we cannot define a list of such
organisations.
>The definition allows an NC member to object and make a case
>if they believe there is a problem. (If they cannot make any argument that
>the rest of the NC believes in, they may choose to withdraw their
objection!)

I am concerned with this kind of flexible interpretation and that's why I
rasied
as an issue. This has been the way we have been working in many ways.

>[Issue 2] The rules in our rules of procedures are guidelines. If we
choose,
>as the NC, we can change them at any time and agree to an exception.

f) regardless of the number of members of the group no constituency nor
the general assembly may have more than one vote

Again, according to 3.3 f) it doesn't sound like it can allow multiple votes
from one constituency however we seem to allow again very flexible
interpretation.

>[Issue 3] General Assembly going to be considered the 8th constituency?
>As the constituencies are members of the GA , this would be a problem.

What I am trying to say was, since we started to accept GA's participation
in many TFs, let us make it a formal rule that GA is expected to participate
in Interim Committee and other TFs, which seems to be proven as workable
soultion so far.

>[Issue 4] The criteria on when those variation can be proposed under which
>condition?

>have tried to set guidelines for everyday purposes. Only when the NC
>thinks there is a good reason, will it choose to vote by majority and
change
>the guidelines. That seems to me to be the right balance of guidance and
flexibility.

Again, please let people, both NC and Non-NC build their trust on the rules,
by increasing the level of "consistency" rather than allowing too much
flexibility.

Rules should not be compromised in the name of the balance.
Rules should be applied to all to in a consistent manner not to lose
stability.

Appreciating your efforts to make rules which were not in the NC until
recently, I want to propose to make a Task Force which can present us
rules which allows little much flexibilities to keep "stability".

YJ