[council] Regarding dealing with inappropriate behaviour

[Gomes, Chuck]

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.
 
Chuck Gomes
 
"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." 
 


________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Sophia B
	Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 8:43 PM
	To: Mawaki Chango
	Cc: Council GNSO
	Subject: Re: [council] Regarding dealing with inappropriate
behaviour
	
	
	 
	 

		an only regret that council members spend their valuable
time on 
		this whole topic of WG membership, failing to clearly
address some
		legitimate questions at inception


	 
	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!
	 
	S
	 
	On 01/03/07, Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com> wrote: 

		Bruce,
		
		Though I appreciate your experience and valuable input
below, I don't
		even understand how we've got to debating about
excluding people for 
		inappropriate behavior. Has some such thing happened in
one of the
		WG, or are we pre-suspecting that some people may not be
civil? Any
		reason for that?
		
		I an only regret that council members spend their
valuable time on 
		this whole topic of WG membership, failing to clearly
address some
		legitimate questions at inception.
		
		Bruce, allow me to remind us of a couple of points:
		
		1) The distinction you made between WG and TF, while
setting up the 
		IDN WG: the WGs are not policy-making or even
policy-recommendation
		group (e.g., they may conduct straw polls, but that is
not a vote on
		a decision.) They are meant to clarify issues and
identify those the
		WG members think the Council should examine further for,
possibly, 
		policy recommendations (through PDP or simple/single
resolutions,)
		etc. As a consequence, I'd like to clarify that the
choices made by a
		WG should not preclude by any means the possibility for
the Council
		to further discuss or examine an issue left out of the
WG report or
		proposals, especially at the motivated request of any
council member.
		
		2) In "designing aloud" (so to speak) the WG general
rules (I must 
		say I don't like this piecemeal approach we seem to
adopt,) apart
		from the size problem, I don't necessarily see why the
membership
		shouldn't be open to any interesting parties (especially
in the light 
		of the WG function recalled above.) I was told that was
the case in
		the old DNSO days, and maybe even early GNSO ones, and
I'm not under
		the impression that we've been dramatically more
efficient since then 
		(I consider respectability, visibility or level of
profile a
		different point.) I don't think the observer category
resolve any
		problem. We could rather consider the following
principles:
		- ensure to each constituency a minimum number of seats
( e.g., 3)
		- open the membership to any interested party or
individual (maybe
		subject to a statement of purpose and interests, etc.)
		- define a maximum size for a WG.
		
		That size needs not to be one fixed number but a range
of numbers. Or 
		if we want to make the procedure clear cut, we could
also ask the
		constituencies to submit whether they wish to retain
their minimum
		number of seats and fill them in at a later stage, or
they wish to
		give them up. But those are implementations details that
can be 
		refined or crafted one way or the other.
		
		Best,
		
		Mawaki
		
		
		--- Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
wrote:
		
		> Hello Chuck, 
		>
		> > In that regard, we
		> > may want to consider some means of dealing with
non-constructive
		> > behavior both for observers and members.
		>
		> I tend to agree that a chair should attempt to deal
with 
		> inappropriate
		> behaviour, bearing in mind the wishes of the whole
group.
		> Ie the decision is not made autocratically, but based
on documented
		> guidelines for acceptable behaviour as well as seeking
the views of 
		> other members of the group.
		>
		> I think the Council then is simply able to deal with
issues on an
		> appeal
		> basis - which could be handled in a similar way to
that of the
		> Board
		> appeal mechanisms - e.g a subgroup of the Council can
investigate
		> and
		> report to the whole Council.
		>
		> However - I would hope that these situations are rare
events.  The
		> best
		> approach is to stop inappropriate behaviour as soon as
it happens, 
		> rather than let it gradually grow amongst multiple
participants (ie
		> such
		> behaviour tends to escalate).  If a problem is let run
too long,
		> then
		> you will always be blamed for singling out one person,
when other 
		> people
		> have also been behaving inappropriately.
		>
		> The rough rule of thumb is that was is not acceptable
in a small
		> face-to-face environment in terms of language and
courtesy is not
		> acceptable in a telephone conference or mailing list
when people
		> are
		> further apart.
		>
		> I have noticed that when a group of people have been
"fighting"
		> amongst
		> themselves on a mailing list and then meet
face-to-face, the bad 
		> feelings are often carried over.  In contrast where a
group has
		> initially met face-to-face a few times and the group
members have
		> built
		> some respect for each others opinions and good
intentions, then 
		> mailing
		> lists discussions are generally much more civil.   For
example, the
		> Council meets face-to-face as a group regularly, as do
most of the
		> more
		> active members of the registrar constituency.
Subsequently mailing 
		> list
		> and teleconference discussions tend to be fairly civil
despite the
		> fact
		> that the participants may be strong competitors in
business, or
		> have
		> strongly opposing views on a matter. 
		>
		>
		> Regards,
		> Bruce Tonkin
		>
		>
		>
		>
		>
		
		


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20070302/873a4d4d/attachment.html>