<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2995" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=631350917-02032007><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>For those of us who have been around for awhile, we have
definitely encountered situtations where group members were not constructive but
rather were disruptive.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>Chuck Gomes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>"This message is intended for the use
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> owner-council@gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Sophia
B<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:43 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Mawaki
Chango<BR><B>Cc:</B> Council GNSO<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [council] Regarding
dealing with inappropriate behaviour<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><FONT
color=#3366ff>a</FONT><FONT color=#3366ff>n only regret that council members
spend their valuable time on <BR>this whole topic of WG membership, failing
to clearly address some<BR>legitimate questions at
inception</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR> </DIV>
<DIV>I utterly agree with this statement. Also completely fail to
see who is misbehaving in this instance, and the attention given to
its deliberations on potentiality!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>S<BR> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 01/03/07, <B class=gmail_sendername>Mawaki
Chango</B> <<A
href="mailto:ki_chango@yahoo.com">ki_chango@yahoo.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Bruce,<BR><BR>Though
I appreciate your experience and valuable input below, I don't<BR>even
understand how we've got to debating about excluding people for
<BR>inappropriate behavior. Has some such thing happened in one of
the<BR>WG, or are we pre-suspecting that some people may not be civil?
Any<BR>reason for that?<BR><BR>I an only regret that council members spend
their valuable time on <BR>this whole topic of WG membership, failing to
clearly address some<BR>legitimate questions at inception.<BR><BR>Bruce,
allow me to remind us of a couple of points:<BR><BR>1) The distinction you
made between WG and TF, while setting up the <BR>IDN WG: the WGs are not
policy-making or even policy-recommendation<BR>group (e.g., they may conduct
straw polls, but that is not a vote on<BR>a decision.) They are meant to
clarify issues and identify those the<BR>WG members think the Council should
examine further for, possibly, <BR>policy recommendations (through PDP or
simple/single resolutions,)<BR>etc. As a consequence, I'd like to clarify
that the choices made by a<BR>WG should not preclude by any means the
possibility for the Council<BR>to further discuss or examine an issue left
out of the WG report or<BR>proposals, especially at the motivated request of
any council member.<BR><BR>2) In "designing aloud" (so to speak) the WG
general rules (I must <BR>say I don't like this piecemeal approach we seem
to adopt,) apart<BR>from the size problem, I don't necessarily see why the
membership<BR>shouldn't be open to any interesting parties (especially in
the light <BR>of the WG function recalled above.) I was told that was the
case in<BR>the old DNSO days, and maybe even early GNSO ones, and I'm not
under<BR>the impression that we've been dramatically more efficient since
then <BR>(I consider respectability, visibility or level of profile
a<BR>different point.) I don't think the observer category resolve
any<BR>problem. We could rather consider the following principles:<BR>-
ensure to each constituency a minimum number of seats ( e.g., 3)<BR>- open
the membership to any interested party or individual (maybe<BR>subject to a
statement of purpose and interests, etc.)<BR>- define a maximum size for a
WG.<BR><BR>That size needs not to be one fixed number but a range of
numbers. Or <BR>if we want to make the procedure clear cut, we could also
ask the<BR>constituencies to submit whether they wish to retain their
minimum<BR>number of seats and fill them in at a later stage, or they wish
to<BR>give them up. But those are implementations details that can be
<BR>refined or crafted one way or the
other.<BR><BR>Best,<BR><BR>Mawaki<BR><BR><BR>--- Bruce Tonkin <<A
href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR>> Hello Chuck, <BR>><BR>> > In that regard,
we<BR>> > may want to consider some means of dealing with
non-constructive<BR>> > behavior both for observers and
members.<BR>><BR>> I tend to agree that a chair should attempt to deal
with <BR>> inappropriate<BR>> behaviour, bearing in mind the wishes of
the whole group.<BR>> Ie the decision is not made autocratically, but
based on documented<BR>> guidelines for acceptable behaviour as well as
seeking the views of <BR>> other members of the group.<BR>><BR>> I
think the Council then is simply able to deal with issues on an<BR>>
appeal<BR>> basis - which could be handled in a similar way to that of
the<BR>> Board<BR>> appeal mechanisms - e.g a subgroup of the Council
can investigate<BR>> and<BR>> report to the whole
Council.<BR>><BR>> However - I would hope that these situations are
rare events. The<BR>> best<BR>> approach is to stop
inappropriate behaviour as soon as it happens, <BR>> rather than let it
gradually grow amongst multiple participants (ie<BR>> such<BR>>
behaviour tends to escalate). If a problem is let run too
long,<BR>> then<BR>> you will always be blamed for singling out one
person, when other <BR>> people<BR>> have also been behaving
inappropriately.<BR>><BR>> The rough rule of thumb is that was is not
acceptable in a small<BR>> face-to-face environment in terms of language
and courtesy is not<BR>> acceptable in a telephone conference or mailing
list when people<BR>> are<BR>> further apart.<BR>><BR>> I have
noticed that when a group of people have been "fighting"<BR>>
amongst<BR>> themselves on a mailing list and then meet face-to-face, the
bad <BR>> feelings are often carried over. In contrast where a
group has<BR>> initially met face-to-face a few times and the group
members have<BR>> built<BR>> some respect for each others opinions and
good intentions, then <BR>> mailing<BR>> lists discussions are
generally much more civil. For example, the<BR>> Council
meets face-to-face as a group regularly, as do most of the<BR>>
more<BR>> active members of the registrar
constituency. Subsequently mailing <BR>> list<BR>> and
teleconference discussions tend to be fairly civil despite the<BR>>
fact<BR>> that the participants may be strong competitors in business,
or<BR>> have<BR>> strongly opposing views on a matter.
<BR>><BR>><BR>> Regards,<BR>> Bruce
Tonkin<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>