On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Adam Peake wrote:
> Dany,
>
> I'm sorry I disagree with your timeline. Please look again at your email
> archive.
>
> 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.
-
Agree. That was included in the changes I proposed
-
>
> 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
> objections.
-
Sorry about the confusion which was not my intention
-
>
> 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.
>
-
For me, non-voting members are allowed to participate to discussions list,
make proposals for new topics or resolutions, probably participate to f2f
meetings but no access to decision making level (voting) for any subject.
Observer could be individual or organisations, not fulfilling the
constituency membership criteria, but
interested by knowing what's going on in the constituency. No right to
speak, just to listen. In case of f2f meetings, they should be allow to
attend but not to speak either. On discussion lists, they should receive
mails but should not be allowed to send.
This observer status may happen to be useful, occasionally, but the
overall managing cost seems too high (special mention in the charter,
extra sublist in the constituency directory, management of a subgroup in
the mailserver, which may be not so trivial), therefore I think it would
be easier to have only voting and non-voting members, and no observer. In
case of real need of observer (dnso secretary, icann staff for instance),
this could be managed much more simply by a decision of the adcom, on a
case by case basis.
-
> Dany, would you please comment on the two versions of the text re.
> non-voting then perhaps we can move on.
-
I prefer express ideas first, rather than commenting of accurate wording
in english. If you think that my comments above are not sufficient, then I
agree to dig into the two versions of the text for more comments
-
>
> Thank you,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> >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
> >replacement.
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> >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: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr | FRANCE
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr | FRANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 06 2000 - 02:13:31 PDT