[atlarge-discuss] Fwd: [ncdnhc-discuss] Some thoughts on one aspect of rechartering: ADCOM

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

> From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
> To: <discuss@icann-ncc.org>
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by NetAction.OR.KR id 
> h2IMhad22570
> Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] Some thoughts on one aspect of rechartering: ADCOM
> Sender: discuss-admin@netaction.or.kr
> X-BeenThere: discuss@icann-ncc.org
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.3
> List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@icann-ncc.org?subject=help>
> List-Post: <mailto:discuss@icann-ncc.org>
> List-Subscribe: <http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>,
>
> List-Archive: <http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/>
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:46:23 -0500
> X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>
>
> I have been investigating how other constituencies
> handle certain functions. After a while one can see
> how poorly designed the NCC charter is, which leads
> to many of our organizational problems.
>
> One recurring problem in NCUC is that Adcom is
> not effective. The constituency as a whole spends
> too much time debating HOW things should be decided
> rather than on deciding things. Usually this happens
> when people realize that a decision is not going their
> way, so they try to reinvent a process that will
> make the decision go their way.
>
> The ISP constituency has a good approach to
> the executive function of the constituency.
> The ISPC elects 5 officers, who in turn select a Chairman.
> The Officers are elected on a rotating basis - every 8 months
> two or one are elected.
>
> The Chairman has direct responsibility for the following functions:
>
> (i) reviewing applications for membership in the ISPCP and, where 
> appropriate, referring these to the [members];
> ii) carrying out the administrative functions associated with the 
> operations of the ISPCP, including the arrangement of meetings, 
> preparation and publication of minutes, maintenance of an appropriate 
> mechanism suitable for facilitating contact and dissemination of 
> information among all Members of the ISPCP and other secretariat functions 
> required for the adequate functioning of the ISPCP;
> (iii) facilitating and, where appropriate, formulating membership 
> consensus on policy issues for the purpose of advising the Names Council;
> (iv) assessing and collecting membership fees, if any.
>
> The other Officers are "deputies" who share the duties
> when asked by the Chair, and they monitor and supervise
> the Chair.
>
> In contrast, our disorganized Adcom approach divides up
> responsibility for basic administrative duties among 5 people.
> It does not tell any Adcom member what they are responsible
> for. So all of them have a tendency to sit around and wait
> for the other persons to do things. No one knows who is
> responsible for what.
>
> The ISPC charter concentrates the responsibility in one hand,
> and makes it clear what this person must do. This person can
> delegate duties to the other Officers, If those duties are not
> performed a majority of the other Officers can depose the chair
> at any time. Also, as the composition of the Officers changes
> every 8 months instead of yearly or two years, it can
> reflect changing conditions and concerns of members.
>
> What do you think of this model?
>
> --MM

We are not alone in our difficulties with determining the most effective 
structure for an organization made up of entities that meet mainly in 
cyberspace.






-joop-



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de