Re: [ncc-charter] Going the wrong way

From: Dany Vandromme (
Date: Wed Sep 06 2000 - 05:52:52 PDT

  • Next message: Milton Mueller: "Re: [ncc-charter] Going the wrong way"

    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
    > <>
    > I think the address is <>
    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 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 - 05:53:01 PDT