RE: [nc-intake] Proposed agenda item from Jordyn Buchanan

[Ellen Shankman <ShankmanE@technologylaw.co.il>]

ok with me -- but I support your earlier comments Bruce that the "points of
order" be raised before the meeting and not tie up the calls.

Thus, if the proposal is not circulated before, then I suggest we postpone.

Happy new year,
Ellen

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Bruce Tonkin [SMTP:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au]
> Sent:	Fri, September 06, 2002 5:27 AM
> To:	'nc-intake@dnso.org'
> Subject:	[nc-intake] Proposed agenda item from Jordyn Buchanan
> 
> 
> 
> -----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"
> > 
> > *******************************************************
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >