<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [nc-intake] IC report for next NC
Philip, thank you for the works.
I have two concerns regarding this
version.
1. Re Composition of the Intake Committee
This explains well enough what IC looks like
however,
it's still unclear how the members of IC will
be on the board
out of 7 constituencies.
i.e. I don't think it would happen
however, just in case
one member from each constituency might volunteer to serve
in the IC or the other way around.
Therefore, to avoid any kind of misunderstaning on
this,
we'd better discuss how are we going to
elect/select
the members(3 or 5) of IC should be
discussed.
My suggestion would be
- Call for volunteers
- If it outnumbers 3/5, NC carries a simple
majority election.
NOTE 1: Since DNSO is composed
of the different interest groups,
this should also meet those balance as much as possible
i.e. at least one non-commercial
representative be in the IC.
NOTE 2: we have to pin down the number,
too prior to this.
- If it turns out less than 3/5, NC asks another call
for volunteers.
and completes this task by carrying out
the simple majority election.
2 Re Agenda preparation
------------------------------------------
The agenda may be changed at the discretion of the NC
chair,
who will make reference to the change in the new
agenda.
------------------------------------------
I don't quite see the necessity of this clause
since
we have secured a bunch of safeguard tools which
can
prevent IC's peremtory decision making
process.
Ironically, if we cannot secure any kind of
safeguard
regarding NC chair's
arbitrary decision making process,
which might invite
unexpected situation.
In this regard, I also want to suggest the last minute
proposal
should be decided by NC members through
simple majority votes
rather than by NC chair.
YJ
[Safeguard I]
Where there is disagreement within the IC issues will be
settled
by a simple majority vote or referred to the NC at the
discretion of the IC chair.
[Safeguard II]
When there are items which have been rejected for agenda
inclusion by the IC,
NC members shall have 7 days to submit an objection which will
count as
a vote against the IC rejection. Non-votes will be deemed an
acceptance
of the IC’s decision, and a majority of the votes shall rule.
[Safeguard III]
Last minute. In case of issues arising subsequent to the
above timetable,
NC members will be able to propose items for any other business
at the start of an NC meeting. Such items will be accepted for
discussion
that day or deferred to the IC at the discretion of the NC
chair.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 8:43 PM
Subject: [nc-intake] IC report for next
NC
Further to Louis comments I found these very helpful and I
have made some small changes to the wording. The wording maintains the
structure of creating the agenda and clarifies that the IC's agenda can be
changed by the Chair and new items added by NC members at the start of a
meeting.
Let me have your agreement to this latest midnight
local time 31 August 2000 and I will then post to
the NC 1 September 2000 to allow for comment / buy-in before the September
meeting.
Philip
-----------------------------------
Names Council Intake
Committee
Report on the functioning of the Intake Committee
August 2000 version 5
Members of the Names Council (NC) intake committee (IC):
Philip Sheppard – chair
Caroline Chicoine
Paul Kane
Y J Park
Michael Schneider.
In the formulation of this report there have been
contributions from Chuck Gomes and Roberto Gaetano.
Destination: this report is intended for discussion and
adoption at the NC meeting 21 September 2000.
Implementation: the recommendations in this report are
intended for implementation immediately after the NC meeting 21 September 2000
and will thus be in place for the NC meeting 19 October 2000.
Objectives of the IC committee
Proposing the agenda for NC meetings (see below)
Proposing an efficient means of running NC meetings (see separate
report)
Composition of the Intake Committee
The IC should be selected only from members of the Names
Council. It should be small and flexible to facilitate meetings and
discussion. It should be comprised of an odd number of NC members not greater
than five. Members should be rotated from time to time.
The IC should not necessarily comprise representatives
from each NC constituency for the following reasons:
- A situation where one constituency's important issue is proposed to the
intake committee who reject it for no good reason and then that constituency
says nothing more is highly unlikely. The ignored party would raise a point
of order at the start of the NC meeting or lobby the NC chairman or post to
the NC list.
- The danger of a "representative" intake committee is that it becomes a
forum for substantive discussion and removes power from the NC. The key
debating ground becomes the intake committee not the NC.
The question of widening the membership of the IC to
positions such as chair of the GA should be addressed by the NC review
committee.
Rules for proposing an agenda for NC
meetings
An IC e-mail address shall be created (Intake suggestions)
whereby any of the following persons can make proposals for NC agenda
items:
- members of the Names Council
- the Names Council secretariat
- the ICANN Board
- members of the ICANN Board
- the ICANN officers and staff
- the GA chair
- members of the General Assembly (GA) defined as subscribers to the
ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org or the GA
voting register.
subscribers to an active DNSO ad hoc working group
There will be a limit of one posting per day and the IC shall
have sole discretion to deal with abusive activity. Intake suggestion e-mails
for any meeting will be publicly archived after the end of the meeting in
question.
Agenda preparation
The IC shall be responsible for:
- drafting and prioritising NC agendas
- combining agenda items with a common theme
- delaying or rejecting proposed items or passing them onto more
appropriate bodies if they are not relevant NC issues.
In order for a topic to appear on the NC agenda being
prepared by the IC, it must be presented to the IC no later than 21 days
before the meeting.
The IC shall propose a guillotine (time limit) for each
agenda item. IC members are encouraged to remind the chair of these limits
during a meeting if necessary.
The IC shall send the agenda for a meeting no later than 14
days before the meeting to the NC secretariat and NC chair. The agenda may be
changed at the discretion of the NC chair, who will make reference to the
change in the new agenda. The agenda, once seen by the Chair, will be posted
by the Secretariat within one working day of receiving the IC agenda. The
agenda will contain a hyperlink to the e-mail archive relevant to that
meeting.
Where there is disagreement within the IC issues will be
settled by a simple majority vote or referred to the NC at the discretion of
the IC chair.
When there are items which have been rejected for agenda
inclusion by the IC, NC members shall have 7 days to submit an objection which
will count as a vote against the IC rejection. Non-votes will be deemed an
acceptance of the IC’s decision, and a majority of the votes shall rule.
Last minute. In case of issues arising subsequent to the
above timetable, NC members will be able to propose items for any other
business at the start of an NC meeting. Such items will be accepted for
discussion that day or deferred to the IC at the discretion of the NC chair.
Reports and declarations
No later than 7 days before the NC meeting, all reports or
proposed declarations relating to forthcoming agenda items must be distributed
to the NC.
Exceptions
The Intake Committee shall have the sole discretion to
deviate from these procedures when externalities dictate.
Trial period and Berkman Center proposals
The IC proposes the above recommendations, which are
intentionally simple and flexible, be trialled for 3 months and then adopted.
These recommendations have their origin in the detailed and prescriptive
proposals made by the US-based Berkman Center for Internet and Society, for
which diligence the NC offers its appreciation. Bearing in mind the more
flexible modus operandi of the NC in the time since the Berkman proposals were
made, the IC does not propose at this time that they are adopted as currently
drafted.
See: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso/ncprocedure/
Should there be deficiencies apparent during the period of
trial then the IC will return to the detailed suggestions made by the Berkman
Center to see which procedures may assist in overcoming such deficiencies.
Always an objective will be the pragmatic, flexible, open, and efficient
operation of the Names Council.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|