Re: [ncc-charter] Re: Charter revision

From: Dany Vandromme (
Date: Tue Aug 29 2000 - 10:35:25 PDT

  • Next message: "[ncc-charter] Re: charter (fwd)"

    On Tue, 29 Aug 2000, Adam Peake wrote:

    > >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?
    Option 2 is certainly my preferred one
    > 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?
    Advantages and disadvantages in both cases
    Personally I wouldn't change my vote, secret or non secret
    If choice is required, I would make it secret
    > [cut]
    > >
    > >> 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
    > proposed.
    > "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.
    > Thanks,
    > Adam
    > (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.)
    That's right!
    Sub-lists may ease that...
    > >--
    > >Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
    > > lonesome." -- Mark Twain

    Dany VANDROMME | Directeur du GIP RENATER

                    Reseau National de Telecommunications
             pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche

                                      | ENSAM
    Tel : +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30 | 151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
    Fax : +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31 | 75013 Paris
    E-mail: | FRANCE

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 29 2000 - 10:35:35 PDT