Re: [ncc-charter] Going the wrong way

From: Adam Peake (
Date: Wed Sep 06 2000 - 00:34:05 PDT

  • Next message: Dany Vandromme: "Re: [ncc-charter] Going the wrong way"


    I'm sorry I disagree with your timeline. Please look again at your email

    August 11, I asked about 2 issues: political organizations and non-voting
    status. I did so because they are pending issues and real problems for the
    constituency now. We have 2 political parties with applications hanging;
    at the Yokohama meeting there was confusion over what role "non-voting"
    could take; we are trying to introduce a resolution process so the
    constituency *can actually get some work done* but we don't know who may
    participate and how.

    Political party issue seems to have been resolved.

    Non-voting status was confused when you inadvertently introduced some old
    language and then Milton has taken it upon himself to create all kinds of

    Yes, we need to get the modification to the Charter complete and put to the
    constituency, I think I've written that 2 or 3 times now, but if we do not
    clarify the text on what we mean by non-voting and how these members may
    participate in the constituency we risk screwing-up yet another face to
    face meeting, as well as letting down people who have a desire to
    participate in the constituency.

    Dany, would you please comment on the two versions of the text re.
    non-voting then perhaps we can move on.

    Thank you,


    >Hi all
    >I apologize for being silent sometimes but I am receiving far more e-mails
    >everyday than I am able to read!
    >Concerning the charter revision, we started from a controversy about the
    >replacement principle for the NC/adcom seats.
    >After discussions, mostly between MM, KC and myself, I circulate a new
    >version, based on the initial charter available on the NCDNHC website,
    >including agreed modifications and a 2-option paragraph for the
    >Then it was noticed that that initial charter was not perfectly adequate
    >and should have been replaced by the february version, issued from Raul's
    >participation. I had no time to redo the writing from Raul's version, but
    >I think Kent did it. Fine for me!
    >Then, rather than deciding (NCC-CHARTER + eventually adcom) between option
    >1 and 2, debates went around the word "observer"
    >instead of non-voting member. Then on, discussion is now about eligibility
    >for NCC with respect to possible participation to other constituencies
    >(and vice-versa).
    >As a result, we lost completely the initial objective to have in hand a
    >revised charter before the election (supposed to start with the nomination
    >period on Sept 1st). The election has not started yet (and who knows when
    >it will start as long as we do not have an agreed charter, dealing with
    >the election process.
    >Sorry to be pragmatic but it seems we should go back ASAP to the proposed
    >charter, substituting only observer with non-voting member if adequate,
    >and decide between option 1 or 2 (Only Vany gave her position about that),
    >and then start the election process.
    >(Referring to previous mail, non-voting member means for me NON-VOTING. No
    >point to enumerate cases where it applies: it applies to any
    >decision-making process of the constituency).
    >Looking forward to see your comments
    >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 : Wed Sep 06 2000 - 00:37:20 PDT