Re: [ga] Announce: Best Practices - Part II, Flow Chart

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joanna, all DNSO GA assembly members, stakeholders and interested
parties,

  Joanna, thank you for providing this.  Well done!  >;)

  However I must add respectfully that our organization [INEGroup]
has a very similar process that your flow chart structures out very
nicely
and has had for some time now.  Our method, is somewhat streamlined
as compared to yours, but not by much.
(Below are more specific comments to the remainder of Joanna's excellent

comments)

Joanna Lane wrote:

>    BEST PRACTICES - Part II  (Flow Chart) is now published at:-
>
> HTML version: http://www.paradigm.nu/~istakeholder/flowchart.htm
>
> PDF version: http://www.paradigm.nu/~istakeholder/flowchart.pdf (466
> Kb)
>
> Zipped PDF version: http://www.paradigm.nu/~istakeholder/flowchart.zip
> (234
> Kb)
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
>
> This is best reviewed together with Part I - (Introduction, Principles
> and
> Definitions), copied below.
> Part III - (Timeline Guide), which gives the optimum time that should
> be
> allowed for each process to take place, is work in progess that will
> be
> published in due course.

  Very well, I am sure our members shall look forward to reading it!
>;)
I know I shall!

>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> BEST PRACTICES - Part I
>
> The General Assembly of ICANN is intended to serve as an advisory body
> on
> issues important to the function of ICANN, and that lie within the
> area of
> responsibility of the DNSO.  Contributions by the General Assembly are
> to be
> based upon a consensus of the opinions of its members. Consensus can
> only be
> achieved, however, when there are clearly defined ISSUES on which
> decisions
> can be based, and mechanisms that provide all General Assembly members
> with
> the opportunity both to voice their opinions and themselves to
> generate the
> ISSUES, and their solutions, that will be treated. This outline, with
> its
> PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS, and FLOW CHART and its associated TIME-LINES,
> is intended to set out a system of BEST PRACTICES that will provide
> that
> mechanism.

  Indeed you are quite correct here Joanna.  It is also necessary that
any and all
interested parties or otherwise stakeholders can freely and in an
unfettered manner
participate within the DNSO GA.  However currently this is not possible,
as
you and all of us know.  SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP seems to still
prevail and plague the DNSO GA through it's selective and illegitimate
GA Mailing  List participation at GA@dnso.org, rules.  Until or unless
these rules are determined and decided upon by a vote of the GA members
in and open and unfettered manner, any Best Practices method of
determining
"Consensus" is tainted if not illegitimate in and of itself.  This of
course is
self evident.

>
>
> By following these BEST PRACTICES, it is believed that:-
>
> (a) substantive decisions can be reached more expeditiously;
> (b) participants in the process can see positive results from their
> contributions, and thus feel more to be a part of the functioning of
> ICANN;
> and
> (c) the factual BASIS underlying an ultimate VOTE to be taken will
> have been
> provided, and the course of the process will have been fully
> demonstrated,
> whereby the result of that VOTE will be accorded the full respect that
> is
> its due.

  Excellent and very relevant point here.  This indeed must be done and
accorded it's just and considerate due.  Such is also true for the ALSC
as well.  But in that there are currently no funds allocated by the
ICANN
BoD and staff for voting or elections of any kind, this is not possible
to effect at this time.  And a terrible and misguided shame this is to
the stakeholders and a black stain on the ICANN BoD, and staff
for deciding that this is was not important enough to give the priority
it deserves, instead of funding for NC, Board members and staff,
lavish expenses for traveling to ICANN meetings.  :(

>
>
> In short, these BEST PRACTICES are intended to set out a systematic
> process
> in which the occurrence of vigorous DISCUSSION and DEBATE is there for
> all
> to see, the formulation therefrom of a definite position is achieved,
> and a
> final VOTE that reaches a conclusion is taken, thus to provide weight
> to and
> evidence for a legitimate claim of consensus within the General
> Assembly.

  Yes.  However we must also be careful to insure that such a
"Consensus"
is one that can be measured definitively by a VOTE.

>
>
> CALL FOR ACTION
>
> The general thrust of these BEST PRACTICES centers on a single concept
> --
> the CALL FOR ACTION which, if followed through to a conclusion, will
> result
> in a MOTION being put to a VOTE of the full membership of the General
> Assembly.

  Agreed.  However such MOTIONS should be able to be coming from any
self declared organization representing stakeholders or individuals
within the
DNSO GA.  This could or should also apply to the ALSC as well.

> These BEST PRACTICES are intended to help direct activity of the
> General Assembly to achieve that goal, through steps that will give
> every
> voice an opportunity to be heard, while at the same time avoiding
> fractionating or splintering of the effort, in each case by keeping
> the
> focus of General Assembly members on the ISSUE at hand.

  Agreed here as well.  And it should also be understood that not only
ONE ISSUE can be under discussion and debate at the same time.
Your document does not outline this clearly.  Is the intent for multiple

issues to be taken for granted perhaps?

>
>
> This procedure is simple enough that its administration could be
> carried out
> by a GA SECRETARIAT, or by any person who would not himself or herself
> hold
> strong views on the ISSUE at hand, but would simply facilitate in an
> impartial manner.

  Complete impartiality on some issues is not possible.  This is self
evident
given the ongoing discussions and debates on a number of issues, that
even
you yourself have engaged in, such as the whois privacy issue...

>
>
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> Participants recognize that the work of the General Assembly in
> general,
> commencing with a Memberšs CALL FOR ACTION, is driven by a set of
> PRINCIPLES. The design of these BEST PRACTICES has been based upon the
>
> principle that both the mechanism itself and the TIME-LINES
> established
> therewith will ensure that the overall process shall:
>
> 1. Be participatory
> 2. Be sustainable
> 3. Be legitimate and accessible to people

  This needs some clarification and enhancement.  What people?  Only
some,
or all interested parties of stakeholders?

>
> 4. Be transparent
> 5. Be able to develop the resources and methods of a General Assembly
> 6. Be able to mobilize necessary resources and expertise
> 7. Be efficient and effective in resource use
> 8. Engender and command respect and trust
> 9. Be accountable to the public trust
> 10. Be able to define and take ownership of recommended actions
> 11. Be enabling and facilitative
> 12. Be regulatory rather than controlling
> 13. Be able to deal with temporal issues
> 14. Be service oriented
>
>
> STANDARD DEFINITIONS
>
> Efficient communication between members of a General Assembly that is
> operating worldwide in an on-line environment, using email lists as
> its
> primary tool, requires a common understanding of the words used to
> describe
> its BEST PRACTICES. Listed in alphabetical order.
>
> AMENDMENT: A change in wording in a PROPOSAL or MOTION that does not
> annul its essential point.

  I guess this definition would depend on an opinion if an Amendment of
some
kinds or types are an annulment of a central point.  Suppose there are
more
than one central points for instance??

>
>
> BASIS: On-line description of purported facts that underlie some
> particular
> ISSUE, that explains why there is a need for action, indicates the
> nature
> and extent of action being sought, and how that action would resolve
> the
> ISSUE and impact current operations, thus justifying the formulation
> of a
> PROPOSAL or the offering of a MOTION.
>
> CALL FOR ACTION:  A demand that action be taken with regard to an
> ISSUE.

  Are the ISSUES limited to DNSO or DNS related issues?

>
>
> DEBATE: On-line exchange of comment concerning the merits of a formal
> PROPOSAL or a MOTION.
>
> DISCUSSION: On-line exchange of comments concerning some matter of
> importance in the functioning of ICANN that lies within the scope of
> responsibility of the General Assembly, that clarifies an ISSUE and
> examines
> the BASIS therefor, typically arising from one or more SUGGESTIONS,
> CALLS
> FOR ACTION and from which may arise the formulation of a definitive
> PROPOSAL.
>
> FLOW CHART: A graphic representation of processes that make up the
> various
> procedures of the General Assembly and how they may fit together; used
> to
> determine TIME-LINES for dealing with ISSUES.
>
> GA SECRETARIAT: An office charged with the administration of voting
> procedures, including the setting of TIME-LINES to assist the General
> Assembly with addressing ISSUES in a timely fashion according to BEST
> PRACTICES.
>
> INVESTIGATION: A search for and compilation of documents and the like
> so as
> to help provide a BASIS for a PROPOSAL or MOTION.
>
> ISSUE: A condition of fact thought to exist on which it is believed
> that
> some action may be required.
>
> MOTION: A formal, declarative call for action on some issue, phrased
> so as
> to be amenable to being either accepted or rejected, and being in an
> agreed-upon form that could be presented to the General Assembly for a
> VOTE.
> A MOTION results from RECOGNITION of a PROPOSAL to be ready to act on,
>
> agreeing on its wording, and then advancing it.
>
> POLL: An informal request for a "yes-no" expression of opinion on some
>
> ISSUE, or a selection of options.
>
> PROPONENT(S): The author(s) of a PROPOSAL, MOTION, AMENDMENT, or
> SUBSTITUTE
> MOTION, who shall develop and PUBLISH the BASIS therefor.
>
> PROPOSAL: A formal, declarative call for action on some ISSUE, phrased
> so as
> to be amenable to being either accepted or rejected; expected to
> result from
> a DISCUSSION of a SUGGESTION.  A PROPOSAL is DEBATED, then in
> agreed-upon form rises to the level of a MOTION.
>
> PUBLISH: To post on an appropriate mailing list.
>
> RECOGNITION: The act of PUBLISHING a declaration that a particular
> PROPOSAL,
> MOTION, AMENDMENT, or SUBSTITUTE MOTION has entered into the FLOW
> CHART.
>
> REPORT: A communication requested and received, in the course of a
> DISCUSSION or DEBATE, in which a member sets out the result of an
> INVESTIGATION into some factual background of an ISSUE; also a
> statement of
> the result of a VOTE.
>
> SECOND: An expression by at least one person other than the PROPONENT
> of a
> MOTION, AMENDMENT or SUBSTITUTE MOTION that is in favor thereof.
>
> SUBSTITUTE MOTION: A MOTION offered to replace an existing MOTION, and
> that
> annuls the central point of the original MOTION.
>
> SUGGESTION: An expression that there may exist some problem, some
> useful
> course of action, or any other matter that falls within the scope of
> the
> DNSO. It is expected that the interchange of suggestions through
> DISCUSSION
> will result in establishing an ISSUE that may develop into a PROPOSAL.
>
> TIME-LINE: A schedule that results from a CALL FOR ACTION that allows
> for
> specific tasks to be performed in accordance with the FLOW CHART and
> TIME-LINE GUIDE.
>
> TIME-LINE GUIDE: An agreed-upon minimum, optimum and maximum duration
> for
> each of the procedures of the General Assembly as identified in the
> FLOW
> CHART, from time to time amended as necessary. The credibility of any
> result
> from a CALL FOR ACTION depends upon the fairness and timeliness
> (whether
> slow or fast) by which                 each process is carried out.
>
> VOTE: The formal procedure for determining the passage or not of a
> MOTION.
>
>
>
>
> prepared by William S. Lovell and Joanna Lane   Last revised Sunday,
> July
> 15, 2001
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html