Adam, and all,
Apologies for my lack of involvement. I've been out of the office for
some time and it's taken me a while to catch up on the discussion.
A few thoughts:
1. In my opinion, of the two major issues the group is confronting
right now (replacements and non-voting members), the replacement
problem is the more urgent. We've had good discussion on that topic
and have managed to define the problem fairly clearly. To offer my
own opinion on the replacement matter, I lean towards the second
option, accession of the AdCom member with the fourth-highest level
of votes. It strikes me as a more straightforward solution.
2. Regarding non-voting members, I think our discussion has been
fruitful. Adam's point about elucidating the rights and
responsibilities of NVM's is well taken, as is Kent's about removing
language that restricts membership based solely on affiliation with
another constituency. Kent's proposed language (cut-and-pasted below)
seems to achieve both goals. I understand Milton's concerns, and
although I agree that an organization eligible for membership in more
than one constituency ought to decide where its primary interests
lie, I don't agree that we should deny such organizations the
opportunity to participate in our discussions. I hope I'm reading
Milton's point correctly.
--
The NCDNHC will have two types of membership, voting members and
non-voting members.
Associations or organizations whose specific goals are to represent
of the interests of registries, registrars or ISPs or those whose
specific interests are to defend the Intellectual Property rights of
their associates cannot have full member status but may participate
as non-voting members.
Non-voting members can participate in Constituency discussion lists,
propose and discuss resolutions and participate in all physical
meetings. Non-voting members cannot vote in the election of
Constituency representatives, cannot vote on resolutions and should
not participate in constituency Adcom teleconference calls.
We understand that many subgroups have separate interests and a
separate voice from their parent organizations. Those subgroups are
welcome to participate fully and actively in the Constituency as
non-voting members.
--
Finally, Dany's right. We need to keep our larger objectives in mind,
and get a charter together quickly.
At 8:22 PM +0900 9/4/00, Adam Peake wrote:
>Alejandro, Rob, Zakaria
>
>Do you have any comments on the current version
><http://joy.songbird.com/ncc/oc.txt>, particularly on Section IV G
>Replacement.
>
>Think we have to get this thing to constituency soon or we'll fall behind
>in the election schedule.
>
>Adam
Rob Courtney
Policy Analyst
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202 637 9800
fax 202 637 0968
rob@cdt.org
http://www.cdt.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 06 2000 - 08:46:52 PDT