>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Adam Peake" <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>
>
>> Bad resolutions will fail, good will pass (perhaps :-) Who makes them
>> should not matter. I would allow non-voting to be able to propose
>> resolutions. (i.e. non-voting members may not vote in elections, may not
>> stand as officers of the constituency and may not vote on resolutions.
>But
>> they may propose resolutions and may participate in the constituency's
>> online and face to face discussions.)
>
>No, I can't agree with this. The problem is that it allows people with no
>stake in the constituency to dominate our agenda and activity. The work
>involved in voting down a bad resolution is substantial. It consumes time on
>a busy list. It can be exploited as a kind of denial of service attack.
>
We have about 10 non-voting members (3 or 4 organizations that are also
members of the cc-tld constituency and 3 or 4 ISOC chapters, plus a
couple.)
I do not believe they are going to flood the list with malicious resolutions.
They do have a stake. They will not dominate our agenda and activity.
>This does not deny nonmembers an opportunity to propose resolutions, it
>simply means that they must find a real member to support it. If someone who
>wants the constituency to pass a resolution can't find a SINGLE MEMBER in
>the constituency to propose it for them, then it shouldn't be proposed.
>Simple as that.
>
Non-voting members. NOT NONMEMBERS.
We already have little enough participation as it is. Please don't make it
more difficult.
I propose:
Non-voting members may not vote in constituency elections, may not stand as
officers of the constituency and may not vote on resolutions. Non-voting
members may propose resolutions and may participate in the constituency's
online and face to face discussions.
If there's agreement that the sentiment's right, then could someone be so
kind as to word it in nice charter language and use it. Or ignore it, but
it would be helpful to have this issue agreed in good time before the
November ICANN meeting.
I'll be away from the list for a week. Holiday.
Thanks,
Adam
>> As Kent says, this may be too much for the urgent charter revision
>required
>> before the election.
>
>No, we need to clarify the resolution process also. Otherwise we have more
>obstacles to accomplishing real business. We can just use the previous Adcom
>resolution procedure that was passed before Yokohama, and modify it as
>necessary.
>
>--MM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 16 2000 - 07:12:01 PDT