Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team
Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon, Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call: I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - if we can crack this, we should be OK! My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that? Kind regards Emily On 9 Nov 2010, at 20:32, <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com> <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com> wrote:
Dear All, Sharon, Bill and I agreed at the last meeting to make a recommendation back to the group on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. Sending this for all to review prior to our conference call tomorrow.
Below is our proposal, with acknowledgment that we adopted Susan's recommendation and language.
The purpose of a Chair is the following:
1) call meetings
2) preside over group deliberations
3) manage the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute
4) Compile reports on the results of the team
Chair's key functions are: To ensure an attendance list is made to be responsible for fulfilling the terms of reference in the time specified, to be responsible for working group discipline, focus and achievements, to prepare and chair face-to-face and on-line sessions, to ensure that the Group operates in an open and fair manner, to ensure that discussions are relevant (the Chair should propose a set of topics for e-mail subject headers), to intervene to stop off-topic communication, to summarize outcomes of each issue and to achieve interim and final objectives in conformance with the terms of reference. The Chair – and any Vice-Chair(s) – must play a neutral role by refraining from pushing a specific agenda, ensuring fair treatment for all legitimate views and guaranteeing objectivity in identifying areas of agreement.
The purpose of the Vice-Chair is to assist the Chair and serve as acting Chair when the Chair is unavailable.
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk
Emily Taylor wrote:
Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon,
Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call:
I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - if we can crack this, we should be OK!
My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that?
I have submitted my take on this aspect already and Bill (iirc) replied that this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order. Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I find the time to read up on this stuff.
Kind regards
Emily
Wilfried.
Hi Wilifried and All, I am not crazy about Robert's Rules. Please know that I have used them for many, many years, and like anything else, they are a tool and a weapon in the hands of people who are expert with them. You can use Robert's Rules to encourage discussion, and to shut it down. I find them a version of crowd control -- which is very necessary in a large legislative body. But we are not a large legislative body. We are a small, collegial, expert group. In that case, traditional ICANN rules would seem to be in order -- they are not documented, not formal, but very well known. They require listening carefully to the comments of the others in the group, working through the issues together, and trying to arrive at a consensus (or agreement) that everyone feels is somewhat reasonable. No one "wins," in my experience, in the ICANN committee arena. It is a give and take. And I really like the voting rules circulated yesterday by Lynn, Sharon and Bill. I think they encapsulate important rules, a limited set, and give us a basic framework. Truly, I think that is all we will need. Dear All, Sending this message in advance of our conference call tomorrow. Bill Smith, Sharon Lemon and I took the action item on our last call to propose a voting agreement for the group. Different views and discussion are welcomed. This is offered in the interest of making our call tomorrow as productive as possible. Please note that ICANN values of consensus and transparency have been considered in this proposal. Here it is: Proposed Whois RT Voting Agreement 1) A quorum of 50% of RT members is required to conduct a vote. 2) A winning vote requires 75% approval or support. 3) Each RT member has one vote; the ICANN CEO (or his alternate) has one vote; all other supporting ICANN staff will not have voting privileges. 4) Straw polls are permitted and do not prevent or restrict a final vote. 5) RT members may authorize another RT member to vote in proxy. 6) Each RT member may designate an alternate to attend meetings either remotely or in person. However, the alternate will not have voting privileges, with the exception of the ICANN CEO alternate. 7) Meetings will be recorded and available for RT members who are unable to attend. 8) Voting requests will be communicated in writing via email with a minimum of 3 business days notice to respond. 9) Vote responses may be submitted via email or by verbal response on conference call meetings. 10) Each RT member will be identified with their vote. Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:40 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team Emily Taylor wrote:
Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon,
Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call:
I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - if we can crack this, we should be OK!
My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that?
I have submitted my take on this aspect already and Bill (iirc) replied that this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order. Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I find the time to read up on this stuff.
Kind regards
Emily
Wilfried. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
I suspect I haven't been clear in my suggestion that we employ Robert's Rules. I am *not* suggesting that we adhere to them rigidly but rather use them to guide us and provide baseline answers to questions like is an abstention a vote? I am in favor of using "traditional ICANN" rules, especially as they relate to working together toward a common goal through consensus building. Traditional "voting" is, in my opinion, the antithesis of consensus. While it is possible to reach common ground through voting mechanisms, they are not designed to encourage it. If we're to reach consensus on issues, we need to define them, understand them, and seek solutions that are "agreeable" (or at least not objectionable) to all - using processes/rules that are documented and well-understood. On Nov 10, 2010, at 5:23 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi Wilifried and All, I am not crazy about Robert's Rules. Please know that I have used them for many, many years, and like anything else, they are a tool and a weapon in the hands of people who are expert with them. You can use Robert's Rules to encourage discussion, and to shut it down. I find them a version of crowd control -- which is very necessary in a large legislative body.
But we are not a large legislative body. We are a small, collegial, expert group. In that case, traditional ICANN rules would seem to be in order -- they are not documented, not formal, but very well known. They require listening carefully to the comments of the others in the group, working through the issues together, and trying to arrive at a consensus (or agreement) that everyone feels is somewhat reasonable.
No one "wins," in my experience, in the ICANN committee arena. It is a give and take.
And I really like the voting rules circulated yesterday by Lynn, Sharon and Bill. I think they encapsulate important rules, a limited set, and give us a basic framework. Truly, I think that is all we will need.
Dear All, Sending this message in advance of our conference call tomorrow. Bill Smith, Sharon Lemon and I took the action item on our last call to propose a voting agreement for the group.
Different views and discussion are welcomed. This is offered in the interest of making our call tomorrow as productive as possible. Please note that ICANN values of consensus and transparency have been considered in this proposal. Here it is:
Proposed Whois RT Voting Agreement
1) A quorum of 50% of RT members is required to conduct a vote.
2) A winning vote requires 75% approval or support.
3) Each RT member has one vote; the ICANN CEO (or his alternate) has one vote; all other supporting ICANN staff will not have voting privileges.
4) Straw polls are permitted and do not prevent or restrict a final vote.
5) RT members may authorize another RT member to vote in proxy.
6) Each RT member may designate an alternate to attend meetings either remotely or in person. However, the alternate will not have voting privileges, with the exception of the ICANN CEO alternate.
7) Meetings will be recorded and available for RT members who are unable to attend.
8) Voting requests will be communicated in writing via email with a minimum of 3 business days notice to respond.
9) Vote responses may be submitted via email or by verbal response on conference call meetings.
10) Each RT member will be identified with their vote.
Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846
Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:40 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team
Emily Taylor wrote:
Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon,
Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call:
I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - if we can crack this, we should be OK!
My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that?
I have submitted my take on this aspect already and Bill (iirc) replied that this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order.
Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I find the time to read up on this stuff.
Kind regards
Emily
Wilfried. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
Great, Bill. I think we have consensus :-)! Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. -----Original Message----- From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:44 AM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at; Emily Taylor; rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Not crazy about Robert's Rules I suspect I haven't been clear in my suggestion that we employ Robert's Rules. I am *not* suggesting that we adhere to them rigidly but rather use them to guide us and provide baseline answers to questions like is an abstention a vote? I am in favor of using "traditional ICANN" rules, especially as they relate to working together toward a common goal through consensus building. Traditional "voting" is, in my opinion, the antithesis of consensus. While it is possible to reach common ground through voting mechanisms, they are not designed to encourage it. If we're to reach consensus on issues, we need to define them, understand them, and seek solutions that are "agreeable" (or at least not objectionable) to all - using processes/rules that are documented and well-understood. On Nov 10, 2010, at 5:23 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi Wilifried and All, I am not crazy about Robert's Rules. Please know that I have used them for many, many years, and like anything else, they are a tool and a weapon in the hands of people who are expert with them. You can use Robert's Rules to encourage discussion, and to shut it down. I find them a version of crowd control -- which is very necessary in a large legislative body.
But we are not a large legislative body. We are a small, collegial, expert group. In that case, traditional ICANN rules would seem to be in order -- they are not documented, not formal, but very well known. They require listening carefully to the comments of the others in the group, working through the issues together, and trying to arrive at a consensus (or agreement) that everyone feels is somewhat reasonable.
No one "wins," in my experience, in the ICANN committee arena. It is a give and take.
And I really like the voting rules circulated yesterday by Lynn, Sharon and Bill. I think they encapsulate important rules, a limited set, and give us a basic framework. Truly, I think that is all we will need.
Dear All, Sending this message in advance of our conference call tomorrow. Bill Smith, Sharon Lemon and I took the action item on our last call to propose a voting agreement for the group.
Different views and discussion are welcomed. This is offered in the interest of making our call tomorrow as productive as possible. Please note that ICANN values of consensus and transparency have been considered in this proposal. Here it is:
Proposed Whois RT Voting Agreement
1) A quorum of 50% of RT members is required to conduct a vote.
2) A winning vote requires 75% approval or support.
3) Each RT member has one vote; the ICANN CEO (or his alternate) has one vote; all other supporting ICANN staff will not have voting privileges.
4) Straw polls are permitted and do not prevent or restrict a final vote.
5) RT members may authorize another RT member to vote in proxy.
6) Each RT member may designate an alternate to attend meetings either remotely or in person. However, the alternate will not have voting privileges, with the exception of the ICANN CEO alternate.
7) Meetings will be recorded and available for RT members who are unable to attend.
8) Voting requests will be communicated in writing via email with a minimum of 3 business days notice to respond.
9) Vote responses may be submitted via email or by verbal response on conference call meetings.
10) Each RT member will be identified with their vote.
Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846
Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:40 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team
Emily Taylor wrote:
Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon,
Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call:
I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - if we can crack this, we should be OK!
My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that?
I have submitted my take on this aspect already and Bill (iirc) replied that this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order.
Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I find the time to read up on this stuff.
Kind regards
Emily
Wilfried. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
Dear All: I tend to agree with Kathy. I've also used Robert's Rules and, as I had suggested a while back, Wainberg's Rules, for many years and both are complex and require some expertise by the Chair and/or moderator to properly use them. If we were to adopt formal rules, I would still suggest that Wainberg's are more appropriate than Robert's rules. Having said that, I don't' want to waste any time on discussing which of those we should use and simply propose that we use the guidelines already established by various team members and the ICANN conventions and, if we encounter an issue which has not been dealt with in either instances, we can consult Robert's or Wainberg's rules to find an appropriate path. Kim On 10 Nov 2010, at 08:23, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi Wilifried and All, I am not crazy about Robert's Rules. Please know that I have used them for many, many years, and like anything else, they are a tool and a weapon in the hands of people who are expert with them. You can use Robert's Rules to encourage discussion, and to shut it down. I find them a version of crowd control -- which is very necessary in a large legislative body.
But we are not a large legislative body. We are a small, collegial, expert group. In that case, traditional ICANN rules would seem to be in order -- they are not documented, not formal, but very well known. They require listening carefully to the comments of the others in the group, working through the issues together, and trying to arrive at a consensus (or agreement) that everyone feels is somewhat reasonable.
No one "wins," in my experience, in the ICANN committee arena. It is a give and take.
And I really like the voting rules circulated yesterday by Lynn, Sharon and Bill. I think they encapsulate important rules, a limited set, and give us a basic framework. Truly, I think that is all we will need.
Dear All, Sending this message in advance of our conference call tomorrow. Bill Smith, Sharon Lemon and I took the action item on our last call to propose a voting agreement for the group.
Different views and discussion are welcomed. This is offered in the interest of making our call tomorrow as productive as possible. Please note that ICANN values of consensus and transparency have been considered in this proposal. Here it is:
Proposed Whois RT Voting Agreement
1) A quorum of 50% of RT members is required to conduct a vote.
2) A winning vote requires 75% approval or support.
3) Each RT member has one vote; the ICANN CEO (or his alternate) has one vote; all other supporting ICANN staff will not have voting privileges.
4) Straw polls are permitted and do not prevent or restrict a final vote.
5) RT members may authorize another RT member to vote in proxy.
6) Each RT member may designate an alternate to attend meetings either remotely or in person. However, the alternate will not have voting privileges, with the exception of the ICANN CEO alternate.
7) Meetings will be recorded and available for RT members who are unable to attend.
8) Voting requests will be communicated in writing via email with a minimum of 3 business days notice to respond.
9) Vote responses may be submitted via email or by verbal response on conference call meetings.
10) Each RT member will be identified with their vote.
Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846
Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:40 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team
Emily Taylor wrote:
Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon,
Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call:
I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - if we can crack this, we should be OK!
My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that?
I have submitted my take on this aspect already and Bill (iirc) replied that this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order.
Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I find the time to read up on this stuff.
Kind regards
Emily
Wilfried. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
Dear all Sounds like we are converging towards a pragmatic approach here, ie no-one wants to place procedure before substance (I'm sure we all bear the scars of other committees which become process obsessed!), we want to work in an informal way, towards consensus, and use existing frameworks for non-binding guidance if and when we get stuck. Best, Emily PS I also missed the link to the Wiki. Thanks for the reminder. On 10 Nov 2010, at 13:46, Kim G. von Arx wrote:
Dear All:
I tend to agree with Kathy. I've also used Robert's Rules and, as I had suggested a while back, Wainberg's Rules, for many years and both are complex and require some expertise by the Chair and/or moderator to properly use them. If we were to adopt formal rules, I would still suggest that Wainberg's are more appropriate than Robert's rules.
Having said that, I don't' want to waste any time on discussing which of those we should use and simply propose that we use the guidelines already established by various team members and the ICANN conventions and, if we encounter an issue which has not been dealt with in either instances, we can consult Robert's or Wainberg's rules to find an appropriate path.
Kim
On 10 Nov 2010, at 08:23, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi Wilifried and All, I am not crazy about Robert's Rules. Please know that I have used them for many, many years, and like anything else, they are a tool and a weapon in the hands of people who are expert with them. You can use Robert's Rules to encourage discussion, and to shut it down. I find them a version of crowd control -- which is very necessary in a large legislative body.
But we are not a large legislative body. We are a small, collegial, expert group. In that case, traditional ICANN rules would seem to be in order -- they are not documented, not formal, but very well known. They require listening carefully to the comments of the others in the group, working through the issues together, and trying to arrive at a consensus (or agreement) that everyone feels is somewhat reasonable.
No one "wins," in my experience, in the ICANN committee arena. It is a give and take.
And I really like the voting rules circulated yesterday by Lynn, Sharon and Bill. I think they encapsulate important rules, a limited set, and give us a basic framework. Truly, I think that is all we will need.
Dear All, Sending this message in advance of our conference call tomorrow. Bill Smith, Sharon Lemon and I took the action item on our last call to propose a voting agreement for the group.
Different views and discussion are welcomed. This is offered in the interest of making our call tomorrow as productive as possible. Please note that ICANN values of consensus and transparency have been considered in this proposal. Here it is:
Proposed Whois RT Voting Agreement
1) A quorum of 50% of RT members is required to conduct a vote.
2) A winning vote requires 75% approval or support.
3) Each RT member has one vote; the ICANN CEO (or his alternate) has one vote; all other supporting ICANN staff will not have voting privileges.
4) Straw polls are permitted and do not prevent or restrict a final vote.
5) RT members may authorize another RT member to vote in proxy.
6) Each RT member may designate an alternate to attend meetings either remotely or in person. However, the alternate will not have voting privileges, with the exception of the ICANN CEO alternate.
7) Meetings will be recorded and available for RT members who are unable to attend.
8) Voting requests will be communicated in writing via email with a minimum of 3 business days notice to respond.
9) Vote responses may be submitted via email or by verbal response on conference call meetings.
10) Each RT member will be identified with their vote.
Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846
Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:40 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team
Emily Taylor wrote:
Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon,
Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call:
I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - if we can crack this, we should be OK!
My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that?
I have submitted my take on this aspect already and Bill (iirc) replied that this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order.
Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I find the time to read up on this stuff.
Kind regards
Emily
Wilfried. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk
Should the chair wish to express and opinion, they are entitled to relinquish the chair, state their opinion, and return to the chair when finished... If we choose to operate in a "formal mode" or if an issue is particularly sensitive. I would suggest that we operate somewhat less formally, and simply ask that the chair make it clear when they are making comments without the "chair hat" on. I've seen this work very well in other groups. On Nov 10, 2010, at 1:22 AM, Emily Taylor wrote: Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon, Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call: I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - if we can crack this, we should be OK! My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that? Kind regards Emily On 9 Nov 2010, at 20:32, <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>> <lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>> wrote: Dear All, Sharon, Bill and I agreed at the last meeting to make a recommendation back to the group on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. Sending this for all to review prior to our conference call tomorrow. Below is our proposal, with acknowledgment that we adopted Susan's recommendation and language. The purpose of a Chair is the following: 1) call meetings 2) preside over group deliberations 3) manage the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute 4) Compile reports on the results of the team Chair's key functions are: 1. To ensure an attendance list is made 2. to be responsible for fulfilling the terms of reference in the time specified, 3. to be responsible for working group discipline, focus and achievements, 4. to prepare and chair face-to-face and on-line sessions, 5. to ensure that the Group operates in an open and fair manner, 6. to ensure that discussions are relevant (the Chair should propose a set of topics for e-mail subject headers), 7. to intervene to stop off-topic communication, 8. to summarize outcomes of each issue and 9. to achieve interim and final objectives in conformance with the terms of reference. The Chair – and any Vice-Chair(s) – must play a neutral role by refraining from pushing a specific agenda, ensuring fair treatment for all legitimate views and guaranteeing objectivity in identifying areas of agreement. The purpose of the Vice-Chair is to assist the Chair and serve as acting Chair when the Chair is unavailable. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/logo310.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk/> <ATT00001..txt>
participants (6)
-
Emily Taylor -
Kathy Kleiman -
Kim G. von Arx -
lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com -
Smith, Bill -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet