RE: [council] Meetings in LA

[Dennis Jennings <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>]

Theresa,

I think it is a great idea to ask the Berkman Centre.

However, I think the Berkman Centre people are quite busy and may not be 
able to undertake this in a timely manner.  I think we should set a 
deadline for this when asking them.

Dennis

On Wednesday, September 01, 1999 8:20 PM, Theresa Swinehart 
[SMTP:Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com] wrote:
> I agree that we need to set up something. And at the Santiago NC meeting
> (which in itself was a clear indication that something will be needed), 
it
> was evident that adoption of Roberts Rules in of themselves isn't 
possible,
> given the different kind of forum - i.e., electronic environment, 
conference
> calls, meetings, and many (including myself) not knowing them inside out.
> Instead something needs to be developed that perhaps takes from different
> rules, but creates something that works in the environment in which the 
NC
> operates.
>
> Therefore, I have a suggestion. Instead of the council (which already has
> enough to do right now) trying to sort out a procedure that works, we ask
> the Berkman Center (e.g., Jonathan, if of course that's ok with him) to 
work
> with the NC members to develop and implement procedures for the efficient
> conduct of business at NC meetings. These procedures would be suggested 
in
> time for consideration and possible implementation at the next NC meeting
> (date still to be determined).
>
> The reason I suggest the Berkman Center is that from what I understand 
they
> have experience and are familiar with the ICANN/multicultural/electronic
> environment/conference call, and any other challenges that need to be
> considered, and as far as I'm concerned those are criteria that are 
needed
> to develop something sooner than later. Seems to me we shouldn't spend to
> much time analyzing how to set up some procedures, but rather try to get
> something moving forward soon. As I'm sure others also feel, it is
> unacceptable for the NC to have another meeting like the last one and it 
is
> our responsibility to make sure it does not happen again.
>
> I'd be interested in thoughts on the proposal to have an outside party 
work
> with the NC to develop procedures. I'm open to other suggestions of a 
third
> party that can be asked to do it, but would note that we shouldn't spend 
too
> much time on debating the method by which to get it done, but rather to
> focus on getting it done and having a chance to review and see if its'
> functional.
>
> Thanks
>
> Theresa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
> Joe Sims
> Sent:	Wednesday, September 01, 1999 8:49 AM
> To:	council@dnso.org
> Subject:	Re: [council] Meetings in LA
>
>
>
>
> 
___________________________________________________________________________
> ____
>
>  This message is intended for the individual or entity named above.  If 
you
> are not the intended
>  recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication 
to
> others; also please
>  notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
> your system.  Thank you.
> 
___________________________________________________________________________
> ____
>
> The ICANN bylaws set up Robert's Rules as a default, which can be 
replaced
> by other rules of procedure by a majority vote of the particular body, 
like
> the NC.  In hindsight, this was probably an error to even establish a
> default, and the NC should certainly feel free to exercise its right, by
> majority vote, to create a simpler, easier to use for these purposes, set
> of procedures.
>
>