On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Adam Peake wrote:
> 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.)
-
OK, but then the charter is influenced by some external rules made outside
the constituency, to allocate travel grants.
-
>
> >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>
-
And then I suppose that it will help to have also specialized discussion
lists on various topics, like we intend to do ASAP.
-
>
> >> 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
>
>
Best regards and thanks for this quick reply
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 06 2000 - 05:53:01 PDT