Dear Milton,
I think this is an important issue, I would be grateful for your reply.
I would like you to explain why you object to the language Kent put proposed.
Once you have explained why you think this language unacceptable, could you
please then address the version I sent (the version Kent modified.)
Please say whether that language is acceptable (or not.)
I hope my proposal will be acceptable, it was an attempt to accommodate
your earlier demands.
Sooner the better then we can get the new charter to the members and get on
with the election.
Thank you,
Adam
>Delivered-To: ajp@glocom.ac.jp
>X-Sender: ajp@pop.glocom.ac.jp
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:40:26 +0900
>To: ncc-charter@joy.songbird.com
>From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>
>Subject: Re: [ncc-charter] charter amendment - non-voting members?
>Sender: owner-ncc-charter@joy.songbird.com
>Precedence: bulk
>
>Dear Milton, thank you.
>
>Why will you not accept the following? (disregard the "of" please)
>
>> The NCDNHC will have two types of membership, voting members and
>> non-voting members.
>>
>> Associations or organizations whose specific goals are to represent
>> {of} the interests of registries, registrars or ISPs or those whose
>> specific interests are to defend the Intellectual Property rights of
>> their associates cannot have full member status but may participate
>> as non-voting members.
>>
>> Non-voting members can participate in Constituency discussion lists,
>> propose and discuss resolutions and participate in all physical
>> meetings. Non-voting members cannot vote in the election of
>> Constituency representatives, cannot vote on resolutions and should
>> not participate in constituency Adcom teleconference calls.
>>
>> We understand that many subgroups have separate interests and a
>> separate voice from their parent organizations. Those subgroups are
>> welcome to participate fully and actively in the Constituency as
>> non-voting members.
>>
>
>If you have a reason, please share it with us. Once you've stated your
>reason, please say whether you will accept version I sent earlier (to which
>Kent objected, but you seemed to accept... perhaps I misunderstood your
>email of a couple of days ago)
>
>Kent, if Milton accepts the following, will you? (I think the 3rd para
>should go before the 2nd, but that's not a real big issue.) We can come
>back to it after the November meeting.
>
>>The NCDNHC will have two types of membership, voting members and
>>non-voting members.
>>
>>We recognize that some organizations that are non-profit and engage
>>in non-commercial activities may be eligible for other DNSO
>>constituencies, but in order to focus the efforts of the NCDNHC,
>>such organizations are eligible for voting membership in the NCDNHC
>>only if they are not voting members in any other DNSO Constituency.
>>[Sentence moved below and changed]
>>
>>We understand that many subgroups have separate interests and a
>>separate voice from their parent organizations. Those subgroups are
>>welcome to participate fully and actively in the Constituency as
>>non-voting members.
>>
>>[New/moved text]
>>Non-voting members can participate in Constituency discussion lists,
>>propose and discuss resolutions and participate in all physical meetings.
>>Non-voting members cannot vote in the election of Constituency
>>representatives, cannot vote on resolutions and should not participate in
>>constituency Adcom teleconference calls.
>>
>>[End new]
>
>Thank you for your understanding.
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>
>
>>Political fact:
>>Any attempt to remove this language will result in a huge fight that will
>>cripple all charter-related activity and indeed all progress in this
>>constituency for several months. We entered into this charter revision to
>>make a few minor changes regarding alternates/replacements in order to
>>allow an election to be held. The election is already delayed.
>>
>>This whole topic must be dropped and dropped now.
>>
>>Repeat: any attempt to alter this language, which was fundamental to the
>>formation of the NCC and led to a major battle in its formation, is out of
>>bounds at this time. We can and should deal with it later, but we need to
>>get on with the election.
>>
>>At 01:16 PM 9/5/2000 +0900, you wrote:
>>> >> *We recognize that some organizations that are non-profit and engage
>>> >> *in non-commercial activities may be eligible for other DNSO
>>> >> *constituencies, but in order to focus the efforts of the NCDNHC,
>>> >> *such organizations are eligible for voting membership in the NCDNHC
>>> >> *only if they are not voting members in any other DNSO Constituency.
>>> >> *Non-voting members can participate in the discussion list, submit
>>> >> *proposals to the Constituency and participate in all open
>>> >> *teleconference calls and physical meetings.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 05 2000 - 21:32:19 PDT