Re: [ncc-charter] Re: Charter revision

From: Adam Peake (
Date: Tue Aug 29 2000 - 04:22:58 PDT

  • Next message: Adam Peake: "[ncc-charter] new words - where from?"

    >On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 06:37:20PM +0200, Dany Vandromme wrote:
    >> Vany's second proposal looks OK. In the three regions not represented in
    >> the NC, two must have as candidate their actual adcom member, who did run
    >> already for a NC position (rather than for only an AdCom position). The
    >> last constituency could have any candidate. Then the vote will be for the
    >> NC seat. The highest score wins. The other two highest scores (respecting
    >> the geographical diversity) will take (or keep) the two AdCom seats.
    >> In case of one of the two Adcom member (Vany or myself to-day), doesn't
    >> want to be candidate for the NC, he should be prepared to be kicked-off by
    >> someone from the same region getting more votes than him. That is fair
    >> since he has no mandate to prevent his region from having a NC rep!
    >I have had private conversations with Vany about this. I am in
    >complete agreement with this formulation.

    I'm back (don't moan...)

    I think you've come up with a good compromise. I can live with the above.

    I personally still feel that we should be placing a far higher priority on
    the Names Council than the AdCom, and that any vacancy should be among the
    three unrepresented regions in an open election. But, understand why
    there's disagreement with my position and so accept the proposal.

    Vany, Kent, Dany: is Option 2 <>
    how you see this represented in the Charter?

    Do you think we might have less regional block voting if the vote was
    secret, candidates didn't see a list of who voted for them?


    >> 2-3- Political party membership
    >> That seems to me terribly difficult to verify whether a political party is
    >> acting or not as a gov or similar level. Unless knowing perfectly well the
    >> political situation of all countries, I bet we will never be able to
    >> distinguish what they are doing (with respect to the NCDNHC eligibility).
    >> We must therefore accept of reject all of them. My feeling would be to
    >> accept them (but on a personal point of view, I will have difficulty to
    >> support the application of some extreme party).
    >I agree with all this, as well.

    Personally, I would allow any political party (non-commercial, etc.) in
    with no restrictions (I'm wavering on it a little, but think that's how I
    feel most of the time.) But I thought there was enough feeling on the list
    and in Yokohama that we should adopt some restriction on political parties.
    So sprit of what I think is compromise, I'd go for the wording Milton

    "non-commercial" is so broad that we are always going top be faced with
    difficult applications, but I think we've done well to now. Note we have
    two political parties pending - under the rules we are discussing I think
    one is clearly eligible and one is very likely not.



    (For what it's worth, I spent the 7 days largely away from email - broken
    main laptop meant traveling with a very old 100Mhz machine, only a 14.4
    internal modem. Brought home just how much traffic the NCC list generates,
    and how silly most of the discussion we generate is.)

    >Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
    > lonesome." -- Mark Twain

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 29 2000 - 04:26:06 PDT