Fwd: [council] Re: Draft Schedule for GNSO related meetings in LA

[Avri Doria]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs at afilias.info>
> Date: fredag 19 okt 2007 11.27.03 EDT
> To: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> Cc: GNSO SECRETARIAT <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>, Bruce  
> Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Draft Schedule for GNSO related meetings  
> in LA
>
> Avri...
>
> I would hope that you would forward this email to the council on my  
> behalf.
> I am offering these comments in light of my previous 7+ years of  
> service on the council.
>
> I personally believe that you would be setting a bad precedent here  
> by having formal council meetings and possible votes prior to the  
> Constituency meetings in LA.
> Historically the opportunity for constituencies to deliberate  
> during the ICANN meetings has allowed for a more interpersonal  
> exchange of perspectives and views on GNSO executory actions in an  
> environment which is very conducive to providing more effective  
> guidance to our individual constituency councilors .
>
> The ICANN meetings also provide a effective opportunity for face-to- 
> face exchanges between various constituencies which helps shed more  
> light on various
> current GNSO issues which in turn can measurably assist in  
> facilitating consensus building.
>
> There are many other important issues which surface with this  
> proposal but I feel that it would encourage current council members  
> or former members to elaborate on them.
>
> my best wishes to you all
>
>
> Ken Stubbs
>
>
>
>
> Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> A few responses:
>>
>> On 19 okt 2007, at 10.34, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>>
>>> I do understand the mess we are in with no decisions taken at the  
>>> last call and a Council
>>> meeting now blended in with a public forum.
>>
>> I do not beleive we are in a mess.  I am sorry you do.  I believe  
>> we have a lot of work to do.  And we have to do it as  
>> appropriately as possible.
>>
>>> However, it is not appropriate to use the Sat and Sun meetings as  
>>> substitute Council
>>> meetings.
>>
>> I do not understand why it is not appropriate for these to _be_  
>> council meetings.  There is no rule that says we can have only 1  
>> meeting while in a face to face meeting.  I think that we can use  
>> our time as profitably as possible and if that involves having  
>> more hours of meeting, I see no rules that bar it.
>>
>> Now if most of the council members believe that it is  
>> inappropriate, that is a different story.
>>
>>> Firstly, our by-laws require an agenda and 7 days notice: ie  
>>> certainty not maybe it is,
>>> maybe it isn't.
>>
>>
>> We have an agenda as of now and there is still more then a week  
>> before each of those meetings.  and I did mention that any motions  
>> would have to be submitted in advance other then minor ones (e.g.  
>> we vote to thank X for Y. or we need a sub group to do draft Z).   
>> As is always the case.
>>
>>> Secondly, the Sat and Sun meetings come BEFORE Constituency  
>>> meetings: surely the reason for
>>> delaying the decision making at our last call, was to be able to  
>>> discuss in the
>>> Constituencies?
>>
>> Yes, and i was not suggesting we make any major decisions that  
>> have never been discussed before.  On each possible decisions, as  
>> was done in the past, the council members can indicate whether  
>> they are ready or not for a vote and whether they need to take the  
>> issue back to their constituencies.  So I am not suggesting  
>> anything different then what we have done in the past.  And if no  
>> one suggests any significant motions in time for the meeting, then  
>> there won't be any significant motions that might need  
>> constituency pre-discussion.
>>
>> I am aware that some decisions are of such a major importance that  
>> council members need to go back to the constituencies before they  
>> can vote.  On the other hand, there are other decisions, e.g. to  
>> constitute an ad hoc group to do something,  that may be possible  
>> for a council member to vote on without returning for specific  
>> instructions.
>>
>>> Thirdly, whereas I am all in favour or improving outreach in the  
>>> public forum, it is not
>>> acceptable to compromise the integrity of our Council meeting as  
>>> a result. Either we can
>>> achieve what Council must or we cannot. If the new format stops  
>>> Council functioning, the new
>>> format needs revisiting.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that it does compromise the council's  
>> integrity?  Certainly after we have tried this format once, we  
>> should review it and can either fine tune it or change.  We are  
>> doing this as a response to comments that were made by the  
>> commenting community, so I suggest we see if it works before we  
>> decide that it compromises our integrity.  And yes, a change in  
>> one place, may require some concomitant changes in other places.
>>
>>>
>>> So, to end on my usual positive note.
>>> By all means lets use Sat and Sun to discuss the issues, but with  
>>> no votes.
>>
>> I would like to hear other council member's opinions on this last  
>> point (on any of the points really, but especially on this last one)
>>
>>> Then, the time needed on the actual Council meeting (Wed Oct 31)  
>>> can be short and sweet to
>>> do the voting.
>>
>> Well we still need to listen to what is said by the community and  
>> then consider what has been said before voting.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> a.
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20071019/ea36efcd/attachment.html>