CONTENTS
|
|
Tab No. |
|
Introductory
Remarks |
1 |
|
Summary
Sheet for Chair of NC |
2 |
|
PowerPoint: Process and
Procedural Rules Presentation (Also Available: PowerPoint File for Printing. When printing, be sure to include the Notes on each slide. In PowerPoint 2000, do this by choosing Print What: Notes Page in the File-Print dialog box.) |
3 |
|
Outline
of Procedures for NC Chair |
4 |
|
Suggested
Principles for Working Groups |
5 |
|
Adaptation
for LA Meeting |
6 |
|
Sample
Speaker’s Log |
7 |
|
Standard
Agenda |
8 |
|
Conversion
Chart |
9 |
|
Taxonomy
of Proposals |
10 |
|
Template
for Motions |
11 |
Cambridge, October 25, 1999
Dear Names Council Members:
Thank you for inviting us to participate
and contribute in your efforts to come up with a workable Domain Name System.
We hope to facilitate the objectives of the Names Council, namely,
advising the ICANN board with respect to policy issues relating to the Domain
Name System.[1] We have therefore
provided a set of procedural rules that the Names Council can adhere to when
formulating consensus recommendations. Enclosed
are our suggestions for the Names Council meeting procedures, as well as our
conception of how the Names Council formulates recommendations and presents
them to the ICANN board. While the
rest of this package will explain in detail the procedures we suggest and
the reasons for their adoption, this brief letter will attempt to highlight
some of the themes and policies that underlie our choices and motivate our
reasoning. We hope you find these
comments and procedures to be helpful as you tackle the DNS issues ahead.
Participation
of both Names Council members and the general public is of the utmost importance
to the DNSO process. Names Council
recommendations are generated from the bottom up. This means that all interested
parties can generate proposals to consider topics, which must subsequently
be dealt with and studied by the Names Council. It is only after broad participation at all
levels that Names Council recommendations are submitted to the ICANN board.
The ICANN bylaws require Supporting Organizations to be formed through community
consensus to ensure that the full range of views of all interested parties
is fairly and adequately reflected.[2] More specifically, the Names Council is not to act on any report
or recommendation until a reasonable time for public comment has elapsed. The Names Council is responsible for ensuring
that all views have been heard and considered prior to a decision by the NC.[3] In our suggested procedure, we have attempted to devise rules to
encourage as much public participation as possible whilst simultaneously maintaining
efficiency.
Keeping
the process open is the best way to keep people involved and encourage participation.
This is reflected in the ICANN bylaws which recognize that the Corporation
and its subordinate entities shall operate in an open and transparent manner,
in accordance with procedures designed to ensure fairness.[4] The more information the public has access to, the more involved
they can be. It is our intention that these rules will make the DNSO process
more transparent by better defining the mechanisms under which it operates.
This principle, which can be
found implicitly in the ICANN by-laws, is sometimes juxtaposed to transparency
and participation. First, the Names Council is responsible for managing the consensus
building process. [5] Second, it is the final arbiter for evaluating and making recommendations
to the ICANN board.[6] Furthermore, since Names Council members have other obligations
in addition to their activities with ICANN, we recognize the importance of
efficient substantive discussion of agenda proposals when the Names Council
meets. Thus, our proposed procedure
often places as much weight on efficiency as on participation and transparency.
The role of flexibility will
necessarily be limited by any set of procedures.
Nevertheless, we have attempted to keep the suggested procedures sufficiently
pliable to allow the Names Council to address urgent issues quickly and efficiently.
It is the Chair’s responsibility
to facilitate discussion whilst remaining impartial and guiding the Names
Council through the agenda. One of
the issues we addressed was potential abuse of the power of the Chair, but
we were also concerned that a weak Chair would impede the efficiency and overall
success of NC meetings. We ultimately
recommended a stronger Chair, and yet suggested that a simple majority should
be able to remove the Chair. This will highlight the fact that the Chair serves
only with the approval of the rest of the Names Council.
We felt it to be more effective to elect a Chair for an extended period,
i.e. of six months, because we expect each Chair to benefit from the cumulative
experience of his duties and sustained exposure to the procedure.
Setting
the agenda for future meetings is an area in which we made considerable changes.
The foremost change is our requirement that 'proposals to consider
a topic' be submitted in writing to an Intake Committee and that a small quorum
of Names Council members vote them into the agenda. (All other proposals must
be submitted in writing to the Chair who will then add them to the agenda,
either as separate items or under one of the standard agenda items.)
We understand that this procedure adds another layer to the preparations
for each meeting, but we believe that our procedure will reflect this increased
investment. Suggesting topics of discussion in advance provides members with
more time to consider upcoming issues. Moreover,
written submission of proposals encourages thoughtful formulation and allows
for friendly suggestions on wording and substance prior to the meeting itself.
We also believe that the meeting will run more smoothly if 'proposals
to consider a topic' have already been formulated in a way that encourages
debate over the substance of the topic rather than over its form.
Finally, if 'proposals to consider a topic' as well as the actual agenda
are posted online, interested stakeholders will have more time to understand
what the Names Council is doing, thereby enhancing transparency. This will encourage interested observers to
attend Names Council meetings, building trust between the interested parties,
and ultimately adding to ICANN’s credibility and competence as a governing
organization.
While Names Council member
participation in discussion is important, we feel that allowing unlimited
discussion time would lead to prolonged debate without any resolution. In the interests of efficiency, we have limited
the amount of time each Names Council member may speak on a certain topic.
We have also provided for procedures to table proposals not yet ready
to be discussed. Understanding that time limits may sometimes
be a hindrance rather than a help, we have also included provisions for adding
speaking time when desired.
The motions practice procedures
we suggest strike a balance between our desire to adopt a structured system,
and our hope of creating a simple system of procedures that can be easily
utilized by everyone. Ultimately,
we decided not to use Robert’s Rules of Order on Parliamentary Procedure because
of their complexity. Our underlying concern is the possible manipulation
by experts which can add obstructive turgidity to substantive discussion.
We have attempted to remove arcane and unnecessary rules, thereby stripping
these procedures to the applicable elements alone.
In this way we have tried to make the learning process as painless
and practical as possible, although we do realize that the procedures might
still take time to internalize.
We have eliminated all use
of amendments during Names Council meetings.
Instead, we have allowed for a limited number of motions that are to
be submitted in writing during the meeting. When a member brings one of the
four possible motions, other members may make 'friendly' amendments. The mover
then has the discretion to decide whether he wishes to change his motion,
or whether he wants to risk having the motion voted down. A system of 'friendly'
amendments allows for a limited discussion on motions, while leaving the ultimate
decision of whether or not to adopt them with the original mover. Furthermore,
the agenda setting process that takes place before the actual Names Council
meeting should serve as an adequate forum to make suggestions and changes
to proposals. Formal amendments during
a meeting are complicated, time consuming and can easily become a source of
confusion.
Another
major change we suggest is increasing the responsibility for writing and reporting
on the Working Groups. In essence
the Names Council should allow Working Group's to act as the 'quill' for their
recommendations whilst retaining control of the Group’s mandate. Holding the 'quill' implies researching topics,
organizing this into structured and detailed presentations, and acting as
the resident 'experts' on particular subjects.
It does not mean that the Working Group will be the sole author of
the recommendation. We believe that shifting the 'quill' from the Names Council
to Working Groups is critical for the practical efficacy of our suggested
procedures. When necessary, however, the Names Council may
still temporarily take over the 'quill' function from a Working Group.
The Names Council should ideally be presented with Working Group reports,
incorporating both Names Council discussion and comment, ready to be voted
either up or down. Designation of Working Groups as the primary
'quill' of Names Council recommendations will enable the Names Council to
concentrate on discussing substantive issues rather than trying to formulate
the text of such recommendations during their meetings.
Public Participation
One issue left outstanding
in our proposal is the degree of public participation at Names Council meetings.
It is our understanding that currently there is time set aside at the end
of Names Council meetings for questions and answers (Q&A) between Names
Council members and the public. Our
concern, on one hand, is that there will be insufficient time for this important
part of the meeting. On the other hand, allowing the public to interject at
any time during the meeting may jeopardize the effective discussion of agenda
items by all Names Council members. We
recommend that Names Council members continue to bear this important subject
in mind, and, meanwhile, that the NC proceed to take questions from the public
at the discretion of the chair.
Final Comments
When reading our suggestions
we advise the reader to keep in mind that our procedures are directed towards
plenary Names Council meetings, rather than teleconferences or online discussion.
Our suggestions concentrate on dealing with agenda items that consist
of submitted 'proposals to consider a topic'.
These proposals are to be distinguished from all others. Although, the bottom-up process does not apply
to the latter, we suggest that our rules on discussing a 'proposal to consider
a topic' apply to all discussion during a Names Council meeting. Finally, when looking at the PowerPoint presentation,
please look for the text under each slide. This text can be found by pressing one of the
icons at the bottom right of the page. The icon to bring up the notes and
explanation of the slide has a white square and two lines under it.
Again,
we thank you for giving us the opportunity to participate and contribute to
this exciting project.
Sincerely,
Alexis Coppedge
Shaheed Fatima
Tony Lim
Hanneke van der Tas
The Berkman Center for Internet and Society
SUMMARY
SHEET:
FOR CHAIR
OF NAMES COUNCIL
1.
Chair
is chosen by majority vote for a term of six months
2.
Chair
begins meeting with statement of agenda
3.
Late
amendments to agenda must be written and receive a majority vote to be added
4.
Chair
directs meeting and all comments are directed to the Chair
5.
The
Chair moves through agenda items
6.
There
are two kinds of agenda item
a)
Proposals
to consider a topic (bottom-up process applicable)
b)
All
other agenda items (NC can decide to apply bottom-up process)
7.
Agenda
items consisting of proposals to consider a topic subjected to immediate vote
(exception: procedural motion to take a non-binding vote)
8.
Chair
maintains an ordered list of members who wish to speak and recognizes them in
turn
9.
Each
member may speak two times per topic for a maximum of 3 minutes each time.
a)
No
member may speak twice until all members have had a chance to speak once
b)
Members
cannot reserve time for themselves or other members
c)
Additional
time may be provided by motion and vote
d)
Clarification
questions may be raised (yellow card)
10.
There
are four types of motions
a)
Procedural
motions (allowed at all times) (red card)
b)
Motion
to formulate Working Group mandate (only after vote to submit agenda item
to working group)
c)
Drafting
motions (only applies to WG reports)
d)
Substantive
motions (not allowed for agenda items consisting or proposals to consider a
topic)
11.
Only
'friendly' amendments to motions or proposals allowed: the mover can decide
whether to adopt them or not
12.
Proposals
are debated and voted on as submitted; simple majority vote is needed to pass
Agenda
Items Consisting of 'Proposals to Consider a Topic
1. The Chair Moves to Agenda Item Consisting of 'Proposal to Consider
a Topic'
2. Vote (On How to Deal with 'Proposal to Consider a Topic')
1.
Vote
to discard issue (3/4 majority needed)
2.
Vote
to send directly (without discussion) to working group (majority needed)
a. Discussion
of 'proposal to consider a topic' - obtaining and assigning the floor
1.
A
member raises his hand to identify himself
2.
Chair
established order of speaking
3.
Chair
recognizes speaker
b. Discussion of 'proposal to consider a topic' - procedural rules
1.
All
members have the chance to speak twice
2.
Every
member can speak for a maximum of three minutes each turn
3.
Members
may not reserve unused time, or reallocate it to another member
4.
No
member may speak again until all others have had the chance to speak once
5.
Discussion
must be limited to the merits of the agenda item
c. Discussion of 'proposal to consider a topic' - types
of motions
1.
Procedural
motions (altering standard procedure), e.g.:
a.
Recess
b.
Non-binding
vote to take temperature
c.
Add
time for discussion
d.
Tabling
of agenda item in favor of:
i.
E-mail/Listserv
discussion
ii.
Teleconference
iii.
Next
meeting
2.
No
substantive motions to amend proposal to consider a topic allowed
3.
Motions
to formulate working group mandate
4.
'Drafting'
motions
5.
'Friendly'
amendments to above motions; at mover's discretion to adopt or not
4. The Chair Moves to Vote on 'Proposal to Consider Topic'
1.
Chair
moves to vote after conclusion of the discussion
2.
Voting
options:
a.
Vote
to fast-track: no need for WG input (NC I); send on for public comment
b.
Vote
to send on/back to Working Group (this time after NC discussion has taken
place)
i.
NC
can discuss formulation (designation, formulation of WG task, and setting
of time limit) of Working Group immediately
ii.
NC
can table formulation of Working Group
c.
Vote
to send on for public comment (NC II)
d.
Vote
to send on to ICANN Board
3. If none of above: 'proposal
to consider' a topic is automatically discarded
4.
Voting
procedures: NC members raise hands to vote
5.
Chair
announces the result of the vote
5. Consequences of Vote to Send Proposal to Consider
Topic on to Working Group (Immediately/After Discussion): Motions to Formulate
Working Group Mandates
a. Designation
of Working Group: Motions to designate Working Group members
b. Formulation
of Working Group task: Motions to formulate Working Group mandate
c. Setting
of time limit: Motions to set time limit
5. The Chair moves to the Next Agenda Item
All
other Agenda Items
a. Discussion
of agenda items in general - obtaining and assigning the floor
i.
A
member raises his hand to identify himself
ii.
Chair
established order of speaking
iii.
The
Chair recognizes speaker
b. Discussion
of agenda item in general - procedural rules
i.
All
members have the chance to speak twice
ii.
Every
member can speak for a maximum of three minutes each turn
iii.
You
may not reserve unused time, or reallocate it to another member
iv.
No
member may speak again until everyone has had the chance to speak once
v.
Discussion
must be limited to the merits of the agenda item
c. Discussion of agenda item in general - types of
motions
i.
Procedural
motions (altering standard procedure), e.g.:
A.
Recess
B.
Non-binding
vote to take temperature
C.
Add
time for discussion
D.
Tabling
of agenda item in favor of:
i.
E-mail/Listserv
discussion
ii.
Teleconference
iii.Next
meeting
E.
Substantive
motions allowed
F.
Motions
to formulate working group mandate
G.
'Drafting'
motions
H.
'Friendly'
amendments to above motions; discretion of mover to adopt or not
3. The Chair Moves to Vote on Agenda Item
4. The Chair moves to the Next Agenda Item
WORKING GROUP PRINCIPLES
We understand that there is a Working Group dealing
with Working Group issues. Nevertheless, we have some suggestions of guiding
principles for the formation of the Groups and their relationship with the
Names Council.
We envision Working Groups acting as the primary quill
throughout the DNSO process. According
to this model, they should research, organize and express all views relating
to the topic under consideration. Where a Working Group report is sent on
for public comment, we believe it should be the Group's responsibility to
gather, evaluate, and incorporate public opinion into its report. As an advisory
body to the Names Council, the Working Group should describe all possible
courses of action regarding a 'proposal to consider a topic'. Working Group
reports should ideally be detailed and adhere to all principles stated in
the ICANN bylaws.
Since the deadlines for submitting proposals to the
Intake Committee have passed and the agenda has already been set, the LA meeting
should begin to follow the proposed procedures with the adoption of the agenda.
In other words, all amendments/additions to the agenda must be submitted to
the Chair in writing. The Chair will then read the amendments/additions to
the agenda to the Names Council before proceeding with a vote.
SAMPLE
SPEAKERS LOG[7]
|
Member Name |
First Pass |
Second Pass |
|
Abril,
Amadeu |
|
|
|
Chicoine,
Caroline |
|
|
|
Cohen,
Jonathan |
|
|
|
Echeberria,
Raul |
|
|
|
Englund,
Jon |
|
|
|
Harris,
Antonio |
|
|
|
Hotta,
Hirofumi |
|
|
|
Jennings,
Dennis |
|
|
|
Kleinman,
Kathryn |
|
|
|
Lindsay,
Richard |
|
|
|
Park,
Youn Jung |
|
|
|
Poblete,
Patricio |
|
|
|
Roberts,
Nigel |
|
|
|
Schneider,
Michael |
|
|
|
Shapiro,
Ted |
|
|
|
Sola,
Javier |
|
|
|
Stubbs,
Ken |
|
|
|
Swinehart,
Theresa |
|
|
|
Telage,
Don |
|
|
----------------------------------------------
1.
Welcome/recognize
any new NC members
2.
Adoption
of agenda
3.
Constituencies
updates
4.
Working
Groups updates
5.
Consideration
of Policy Proposals
6.
Outstanding
electoral issues
7.
Internal
administration
8.
Budget
9.
Forthcoming
teleconferences and meetings
10.
Forthcoming
plenary meeting
11.
Other
business
12.
Q&A
from the public
CONVERSION CHART
In order to facilitate the tallying during the voting process, the
following are suggested conversions from proportions to raw numbers of Names
Council member votes required.
|
Proportion of Votes |
Number of Members (assuming
19 total) |
|
3/4 majority |
15 |
|
2/3 majority |
13 |
|
Majority |
10 |
Taxonomy of Proposals
The main distinction we have made is between 'proposals
to consider a topic' and all other proposals.
'Proposals to consider a topic' can be submitted by the ICANN Board,
the General Assembly, other Supporting Organizations, Names Council members(s),
and, finally, by one or more of the Constituencies.
'Proposals to consider a topic' are meant to go through the bottom-up
process in order to become Names Council recommendations to the ICANN Board.
This means that they must be submitted to the Intake Committee. The flowchart
and rules set out in the accompanying PowerPoint presentation apply to these
proposals once they have become agenda items.
All other proposals do not necessarily have to comply
with the bottom-up process. Should the Names Council wish, it may vote that
these proposals should also be subjected to the bottom-up procedure. The rules
we suggest for application during Names Council meetings do apply to the discussion of these proposals.
These proposals, not requiring consideration of a topic, can be added to the
agenda independently or in conjunction with 'standard' agenda items. In order
to be added to the agenda they must be submitted in writing to the Chair who
must subsequently actually put them on the agenda. These proposals can also
be made during the discussion of an agenda item. In this case, they are put
before the Names Council in the form of substantive motions. These motions
must be in writing.
Proposals not constituting 'proposals to consider a topic' could relate to any one of the following items:
Template for Motions
Procedural Motions
I move we ________________.
Motions to Formulate Working
Group Mandate
I move that we designate existing Working Group ______ to prepare a report
on the topic currently under consideration.
I move that we designate a new Working Group to prepare a report on the
topic currently under consideration.
I move that following Names Council member be elected to the position
of new Working Group Chair __________________________.
I move that we formulate the Working Group’s task as follows________________.
I move that we have following option considered by Working Group_____________________.
I move that the Working Group add the following to its report _____________________.
I move that we set the following time limit for the Working Group ______________,
and present the following within that time frame __________________.
'Drafting' motions
I move that we strike following option from the Working Group report ___________________.
I move that we replace this Working Group proposal with the following
___________________.
Substantive motions
I move that the Names Council adopt following proposal
_______________________.
[1] ICANN Bylaws, Article VI-B, Section 1(a): Description
[2] ICANN Bylaws, Article VI, Section 3: Supporting Organization Formation
[3] ICANN Bylaws, Article VI-B, Section 2(b)
[4] ICANN Bylaws, Article III, Section 1. General
[5] Article VI-B, Section 2(b)
[6] Article VI-B, Section 2(c)
[7] To be updated by the Secretariat.