[ncdnhc-discuss] Ad Com procedure (was: 1st Ad Com Meeting)

[Harold J. Feld]

First, a personal request,can peaopl please trim responses to include only relevant information?  some of these messages are very long and cumbersome to read.

Jamie Love Wrote:
>1.  First, when the Ad Com meets, would it be possible to have some prior
>notice for the NCC membership?

This is a good idea.  In this particular instance, we had problems because many current and former AdCom members had prior commitments, many involving travel.  I myself received only a few hours notice of the meeting, and then was confused regarding when it would take place local time.

Elections were only just finalized, and we needed to respond to requests from NC to fill position prior to Accra.  In short, I do not expect this meeting to serve as a model, and hope we can work constructively within this consticuency to set up a good working model.

> 2.  Could there be some indication of what the adcom will do when it 
>meets(an agenda), so that members of the NCC can at least express an >opinion before the Ad Com makes all of these decisions on our behalf?

 Again, this is a good idea for the future.

> 3.  From the message you posted earlier, it does not appear as if only Ad
>Com members can serve on all the TF that the Ad Com filled.   And of >course,  ou appointed some non-ad com members, like Milton, who is no >longer on the Ad Com.

As I understand the NC rules, there are two things: task forces and committees.  Committee members must be NC reps.  TF members can be anyone selected by the constituency, but TF _chairs_ must be NC reps.

Because of Milton's long involvement in both UDRP and .Org, we decided to ask him to continue and to ask NC to permit Milton to continue on the TF as chair despite the NC rule tot he contrary.  In the case of .org in particular, that work will soon end and we felt that the continuity would be valuable and best serve the consticuency.

> 4.  I would appreciate some comment on the obligation of "our" task force
>members to communicate with the NCC about the positions that "we" have
>taken.  For example, I would like to know what "our" positions are on the
>.org TF.

This is a good question and should be debated.  Personally, I think we select people and ask them to do their best job, report back tot he consticuency regularly, and act on the consensus expressed by the constituency.  I am hesitatant to set up elaborate formal procedures because (a) it makes it very difficult for whoever is appointed to actually work with the TF or committee or respond to unanticipated circumstances; (b)it reduces the pool of volunteers.

> All of this complaining about other parts of ICANN will be more >persuasive if the NCC is more transparent and accountable, in the same >"bottom up" way that Harold's proposed resolution calls for. 

And allof this must happen now, at once, on one foot, or our criticism is meaningless?  We have a meeting next week.  i wish we had our elections take place after it, so we did not have the situation of new members (myself, for example) needing to deal with change in constituency _and_ deal with Board meeting.  But these are the cards wer are dealt.  It is not possible to rethink and reqork how this consticuency operates and get ready for the meeting at the same time. At least I can't.

 >  PS.... do you really think there was no one in the NCC membership that >may be been tapped for these various TF positions?

I'm not even sure what this means.

Harold