Re: [nc-intake] Revised report

[Louis Touton <touton@icann.org>]

Phil (and the rest of the intake committee),

In reviewing the revised report that Phil did (on a very quick
turn-around), I think he did an excellent job of capturing most 
if not all points of the NC discussion, but there seem to be a 
few places where some inconsistencies have arisen in the text as 
a result of the changes.  To assist the committee, I have gone 
through the revised report and highlighted items that the committee 
may wish to consider conforming to the new material.  I have also 
highlighted for your discussion an issue about Board referrals:

> Philip Sheppard wrote:
> 

[snip]

> 
> 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
> 
>    * members of the ICANN Board
> 
>    * the ICANN secretariat
> 
>    * 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
> 

What is the intended method of handling referrals from the Board to the
NC?  Are they intended to go through this process or some variant?
Are they instead to be inserted into the agenda by the NC chair?
The above allows "members of the ICANN Board" to submit proposals, but 
not the Board itself.

[snip]

> 
> Agenda preparation
> 
> The IC shall be responsible for:
> 
>    * drafting and prioritising NC agendas
> 

In view of the NC discussion, shouldn't the above item say "proposed"
agendas?  Compare this with the "Last Minute" section of the revised 
report (below), which I think does describe what the NC discussed.

>    * 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  be discussed at a  Names Council meeting, it
> must be presented to the IC no later than 21 days before the meeting.
> 

I understood the NC discussion to indicate that the NC retained
authority to add an item to the agenda, and also for there to be AOB 
issues raised.  That is also consistent with the section of the draft 
report entitled "Last Minute."  In view of this, perhaps the immediately 
above sentence should be tweaked for conformity.

> 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. A final agenda 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.
> 

As to the last sentence above ("A final agenda . . . "), it seems to 
indicate (incorrectly, I'm sure) that the intake committee report
proposes to prevent the NC from altering the agenda at the beginning 
of its meeting.  When most ICANN groups have meetings, they give their 
members an opportunity for agenda-bashing.  One would hope that in 
operation the intake committee's proposed agendas would earn the respect 
of the NC and not lightly be altered, but I did not understand the NC 
meeting to indicate that there should be a rule confining the NC rigidly 
to the agenda proposed by the intake committee and revised by the chair.

> 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.

The above language does not seem consistent with the NC meeting.  Does
the intake committee report really mean that no NC member can vote to 
change an agenda unless the member submits an objection seven days 
before the meeting? That seems like a harsh measure that would 
effectively mean that few if any attempts to add to or subtract from 
the agenda would ever succeed.  It seems in conflict also with the 
premise of the following language, taken from the early part of the 
draft intake committee report:

>    * 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.
> 

> 
> 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.
> 

The above is what I understood to be the gist of the NC discussion.

> Reports and declarations

[snip]