Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San Jose - 062599

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

Ellen,

Hello,  I would agree with your placement of the "good" but
might put the "bad" into the "ugly"  section.  I would also
pragmatically put the "ugly" into the "not optimal" section...
I will explain below:

Ellen Rony wrote:
> 
> ROUGH NOTES FROM THE NAMES COUNCIL MEETING 062599 -
> For accurate record, see:
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso
> 
> The good, the bad, the ugly.
> The good:
> An open meeting, democracy in action with all its warts.  The meeting
> showed that it is possible to handle administrative matters without
> audience interruptions.  E-mail comments on large screen in full public
> view. Several comments were publicly addressed.

Please take into consideration, that this was the first meeting
of such for most of us (at least for me.)  However, I think the
openness was extremely important - there were concerns that the
meeting would be closed, and this was not the case.

> The bad:
> The warts. Deference to Roberts Rules of Order without understanding those
> procedures. Who calls for the vote?  How to handle amendments?   Discussion
> interrupted a vote underway.  Revoting,  Unclear restatement of topics
> under consideration for voting.   Fits and starts in the discussion.  Lack
> of clarity about the role and power of the Names Council. Difficulty of
> remote participants to hear discussion.  Lack of review of who connected
> remotely in the middle of the meeting, in the middle of a vote.

As I mentioned, I think the procedures were more "ugly" than "bad."
I agree, we definitely need to work on this, but as I have spent 
my professional life in Japan, I have never used Robert's Rules before...
Also the technical aspects should be addressed for the next meeting.

> The ugly:
> Making *any* decisions until the NC is fully formed.  Currently, the
> non-commercial constituency public  has no representation in these
> decisions.  The gTLD constituency representation is in dispute.  The
> outcome of the meeting put cart before horse, and therefore, all
> recommendations that follow from an ill-conceived (not fully formed)
> process are suspect.

While I respect your opinion, and agree that the Names Council 
should not make any "decisions" with regard to voting on policy
issues, this did not occur.  I do not believe the forming of the 
working groups is a policy decision, it is the indication that an
issue should be looked at.  Further all of the topics that were
considered, were brought up before the (albeit summary) General 
Assembly meeting in Berlin.  

I would point to the fact that the chairman of WG-A suggested
that no decision be made on that particular topic, and the ICANN 
deadline be extended.  While there was no vote on this point, since
there was no document or report to comment on, I would say this
indicates the mood of the NC not to rush into things.  At least
I personally feel that way.
 
> Suggestions:
> The Names Council needs a parliamentarian.  Every vote should FIRST be
> restated by a neutral party, and discussion should *precede* the vote, not
> interfere with the actual voting. Chair needs to ascertain which remote
> participants remain online and that they all heard the complete proposal
> being voted on. [I wonder how ICANN'S board meetings are run.] Also, the
> agenda should have built into it time to review and address the comments
> sent in by e-mail. NC needs to address what to do if it receives a large
> volume of email response during a meeting, revealing a part of the
> discussion that hit a public nerve.

The parliamentarian is a very good suggestion - however is there a 
neutral party out there?   I do not believe the current 
composition of the DNSO has such a position, but it certainly 
would help procedure (the part I would say that was particularly
"ugly.")

Overall, I think things will improve as we all find methods
that work, and discard those that do not work.  My impression
of the current Names Council members is that we are all 
committed to the process.  I personally was very pleased at
the meeting, albeit a little exhausted.   I do not think that
any process has been hijacked, and at least I personally can
state that I have not been hijacked by anybody or anything :-)

Looking forward to working on this with ALL of you,
Richard

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