[nc-intake] Proposed agenda item from Jordyn Buchanan

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn.buchanan@registrypro.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 10:10 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Subject: Re: [council] Proposed agenda for 12 September 2002


Hi Bruce:

If possible, I'd like to introduce an agenda item regarding the chairing of
new Task Forces.  I'm still working out the details of the proposal, but I'd
like to get it on the agenda, if possible.  (If this is overly complicated
or interferes with the flow of your proposed agenda, we can hold off until
the next meeting.)

Thanks,

Jordyn

On 9/5/02 6:26 AM, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> Hello All,
> 
> I note from the current Rules of Procedure for the Names council that
agenda
> items should be sent to the Names Council Intake Committee 21 days before
> the next meeting.
> The Intake Committee will send the agenda no later than 15 days before the
> meeting to the NC secretariat and the chair, and then the agenda will be
> posted by the Secretariat.
> 
> Well clearly these timelines have not been met in the case of the agenda
for
> the meeting
> on 12 September, so I submit the following suggested agenda for comment,
> before it is confirmed by the Secretariat.
> 
> At this stage I think it is important that we review the current state of
> the main work items being undertaken by the Names council, and then
consider
> next steps (e.g deletes, and any further comments on the reform process).
> 
> As a general rule I think we should use the names council teleconferences
to
> get early feedback and discussion on task force initial findings and
> draft/initial recommendations, rather than spend the time on procedural
> matters (which can be dealt with usually via email).   We need better
> engagement and communication between the task forces, names council
members,
> and Board.
> The NC members can then help drive the consensus process within their
> constituencies to give further information to their nominees on the task
> forces, and strive to reach consensus.
> 
> In my view, in future task forces should keep to their initial terms of
> reference, and the terms of reference should be varied after approval of
the
> Names Council.  We need to ensure that we can stay focussed on a
particular
> issue, resolve that issue in a timely fashion, then move onto looking at
the
> next issue.  This will tend to avoid projects that go on forever.  A good
> software engineering principal is that it is worth spending more time to
get
> the definition of the task right, as it saves significant time later on.
> 
> I welcome feedback from members of the council on the comments above.
> 
> SUGGESTED AGENDA:
> 
> (1) Actions from last meeting - report on suggested process for addressing
> deletes (15 MINS)
> 
> (2) Update on ICANN Board election process (5 MINS)
> 
> (3) Transfer Task Force - review current status of outcomes with respect
to
> the terms of reference (see below) - seek feedback from NC members on
draft
> recommendations and points of contention within the task force   (30 MINS)
> 
> (4) WHOIS Task Force - review current status of outcomes with respect to
the
> terms of reference (see below) - seek feedback from NC members on draft
> recommendations and points of contention within the task force   (30 MINS)
> 
> (5) Feedback on the Second Interim Implementation Report from the
Committee
> of ICANN Evolution and Reform
>
(http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/second-implementation-report-02
> sep02.htm) (30 MINS)
> 
> My aim would be to try to stick to the time limits above, and if
discussion
> hasn't finished on a topic, we continue via email, and then at the next
> conference call.
> 
> Please let me know if you would like to see changes in the agenda above.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> (see below for terms of reference)
> 
> **********************
> 
> TRANSFERS Task Force Terms of Reference (process started 11 October 2001):
> The purpose of the Task Force on Transfers is to:
> 
> --develop broad understanding across the NC of the issues underlying the
> disputed area of transfers of domain names between registrars
> 
> --ensure  understanding of the proposed approach as documented in the
> Registrars' procedural document, which has been voted on by the Registrars
> 
> --identify any broad policy issues (separate from contract issues), which
> are the responsibility of the DNSO
> 
> -devise recommendations which have broad cross constituency support  to
any
> identified problems arising from the language of the existing  agreements
> where policy needs to guide contractual changes.
> 
> --undertake a "fast track" working effort, via a Task Force,  to present a
> proposal for NC consideration at Marina del Ray NC meeting and to
recommend
> next steps, if any.
> 
> ********************************
> 
> WHOIS Task Force (started 10 July 2001)
> Mission:
> "Consult with Community with regard to establishing whether a review of
> ICANN's WHOIS Policy is due and, if so, how best to address"
> 
> *******************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
>