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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: fredag 19 okt 2007 11.27.03 EDT
> To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: GNSO SECRETARIAT <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bruce  
> Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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.