Re: [nc-review] NC Review 2.0 Circulation for Comment.

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

Philip,

Thank you for your input here.

Let review committee discuss your proposal together with
my suggestions on Names Council earlier.

Since there are many things we have to clarify before we pin down
as NC position such as how to decide NC committee chair.
As we all know, so far it's been decided based upon voluntary base
in a pretty arbitray manner.

For example, if there is another volunteer to chair a NC committee,
that is if we have more than one should we have an election or
have co-chair status based upon our old experience like Kathy and Philip
in WG-B process.

You also mentioned "abusive participation" in NC which is very nebulous
can you clarify more on this?

Thanks, Philip for your input here again.

YJ
===============================
FYI, I am trying to recall your memories here.

From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Cc: <nc-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 7:08 PM

=====================================
DNSO Review [2] : Names Council
=====================================
Table of Contents
I.  Committees of Names Council(NC)
II. The Scope of NC Chair
III. The Names Council Position Adoption Process
=====================================
I. Committees of Names Council

Background:
Since Yokohama Names Council Meeting, there have been four
committees(Review, Intake, Budget and Outreach) up and running.

By working this new model, NC learns that there could be rooms
to be improved and the necessity to formalize this is also noted.

Purpose:
To accelerate its advisory function to ICANN Board from the DNSO,
Names Council can have various committees within NC.

(1) Formation

[Self-Formation]
A committee can be formed by a motion and following second
with simple majority during either teleconference or physical meeting.

[Formation by request]
A committee can be also formed by the request by the other groups
such as GA, WGs, the Board, and the other supporting organizations.

The requests made by GA, WGs should be authentically proved.
GA's request to NC should prove it acquired simple majority of the voters.
WG's request to NC should prove it acuired simple majority of the voters.

NC Chair recognizes its formation.

(2) Composition

All the various committtees within the Names Council should include
each representative from each constituency in a more open and
transparent manner except their own clear expressions of non-involvement
in order to reflect all the different perspectives from "seven"
constituencies.

(3) Responsibility

Ecah committee is expected to have a volunteer chair or designated chair
to facilitate efficient communications among committee members and NC
as a whole. It is a option to have two chairs who may have different views
on the requested tasks.

The progress report of each committee should be presented in a written
form 10 days in advance both to minimize the misunderstanding and to
abridge expositions on details which can be covered in the written report.

If it fails to meet this demand, the responsible members of this committee,
who have been supposedly to submit it, cannot exercise their voting rights
regarding its specific mission.

By building this practice, Names Council can avoid the burden of non-native
speakers of English who are lopsidedly required to communicate in their
second language, English, in participating in ICANN DNSO Internet policy
decision-making process.

(4) Dissolution

If a committee acomplish its own mission by providing substantial
recommendations or position document to the relevant organizations,
it can be dissolved by a motion and following second with simple
majority during either teleconference or physical meeting.

NC Chair recognizes its dissolution.

II. The Scope of the Chair

Background
The notion that the whole NC process should not be proceeded by
Chair of NC alone in his/her own arbitrary manner was expressed.

(1) NC chair should not take advantage his/her position to steer
the whole NC to the direction which might arise from his/her own
interest rather than the whole NC's interests.

(2) NC Chair should update each Committee's activities in every meeting
and if he/she finds a Committee doesn't work properly as requested,
Chair should recommend remedies. If it still doesn't work, Chair has
to bring this to the NC and NC is going to decide the next move.

(3) If a Committee wants specilaized legal advice from "legal advisory
committee", Chair is expected to bridge a NC Committee and
"legal advisory committee", a pool of volunteers who have legal expertise.

III. The Names Council Position Adoption Process

Names Coincil has watched too much pressure and burden to ICANN
staff, and it's time to release their overloaded responsibilities to
volunteers.

Names Council will have a "LEGAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE"
who have been equipped with diverse legal training backgrounds.

(1) The Position initiated by Names Council

     NC position can be developed in the committee either by NC delegation
     or committee's own initiative.

     When NC delegates its works to a specific committee, NC Chair has to
     ensure the Chair of this committee has to report its milestone along
with
     workplan within one week.

     If the positon comes out out of committee's own initiative, it has to
go
     through the NC approval by simple majority, with no exception.

     Both positions cannot be published before NC's formal approval.
     However, it can be circulated or distributed as a draft position to
consult
     with as many relevant bodies as possible.

     If there is urgent demand for NC to submit its position either to ICANN
     Board or to the public within two weeks, NC Chair has to notify a
     situation to the whole NC via on-line and organize either whole tele-
     conference meeting or small volunteers group meeting which was decided
     via online by NC.[Fast-Track]

     The discussion on fast-track can be limited upon situations however,
     every fast-track process should be reviewed by review committee
     whether this was really urgent enough to depend on this process,
     if not, this position will be withdrawn by simple majority votes of NC.

(2) The Position requested by the other groups such as GA, WGs,
      the Board, and the other supporting organizations.

     When GA, WGs, the Board or the other SOs delegate its works to NC,
     the request is expected to be delivered through E-mail to NC.

     When NC delegates its works to a specific committee, NC Chair has to
     ensure the Chair of this committee has to report its milestone along
with
     workplan within one week.

     No position can be published before NC's formal approval.
     However, it can be circulated or distributed as a draft position to
consult
     with as many relevant bodies as possible.
================================================


> Here follow my comments on Review 2.0 as a representative of AIM. I am
> commenting only on the consultation process and base this on my experience
> as co-chair of WG B and as an issue-manager with a diverse multi-cultural
> trade association.
>
> 1. The NC should take responsibility for the process. The NC should lead
on
> consultation. An NC member should chair each working group (WG). There
> should be no other chair. The chair will be responsible for building
> consensus, barring abuse, writing precis of opinions and drafting
documents.
>
> 2. Terms of reference for a working group should be:
> - realistic and limited in scope
> - action oriented without descriptive hyperbole
> - include measures of success
> - specify a deadline
> - specify the process
> - specify the date (or trigger point) for the termination of the work
group.
>
> 3. Each constituency should be encouraged to appoint a rapporteur to
> participate in each work group and be the conduit for informing the
> constituency and passing to the WG the opinion of the constituency.
>
> 4. Abusive participants in a WG should be deleted from participation after
> two warnings from the WG chair.
>
> 5.  The WG chair should report at each NC meeting to advise of progress
and
> feasibility of completing the tasks within the timescale.
>
> 6.  The final report of a WG should be seen as a set of opinions of a
> diverse but not systematically representative group. Its recommendations
> should then be evaluated and challenged by debate within the
representative
> NC. The NC will then produce its own report on the issue as an NC
> recommendation to the ICANN Board.