Dany, thanks for your comments. A couple of replies below.
>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.
>
I basically agree with you. Only difference being I would say they
*should* be able to participate in face to face meetings but not vote on
resolutions at those meetings. One reason I think they should be able to
participate (that is, speak, argue an issue, etc.) in face to face meetings
is that they are eligible for the ICANN travel grants and it would be
strange to have them use the funds and then not be able to make a
contribution once they are at the meeting (this is not my only reason but I
think it's a fair argument.)
>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.
>-
I would be interested in talking about this once we have this version of
the charter agreed and the election out of the way. It would be nice if
the list were for members (all type of members.) On some topics it seems
that more than 50% of the notes are from people who are not constituency
members of any kind! There is a second list that I think might have been
intended for non-member comment, but it is not used. See
<http://lyris.isoc.org/cgi-bin/ncdnhc/lyris.pl?visit=ncdnhc-comments>
I think the address is <ncdnhc-comments@lyris.isoc.org>
>> 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
>-
I apologize, my haste was inconsiderate and inappropriate.
Thank you,
Adam
>>
>> 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 - 05:41:39 PDT