One more comment/remark I did before:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Rob Courtney wrote:
> 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.
I think that it is not needed to list the voting exclusion, since I am
pretty sure that soon or later, we will meeta case, not listed in the
charter, where a constituency vote will be required.
Let me take an example (which is a pure assumption): suppose we end up
with a budget to manage for the constituency itself. It will be mostly the
Adcom responsability to do so (but nothing has been even mentionned in
terms of budget in the charter). Suppose that a decision needs to be taken
by the constituency. What will be the decision taking process? Will it be
a resolution? I doubt. Some decision may need a majority approval, like
establishing or modifying a membership fee or deciding anything else
Therefore I would prefer the simple concept VOTING versus NON VOTING,
without explicit reference to application domain
> 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.
I agree with everything else
> 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
> >Think we have to get this thing to constituency soon or we'll fall behind
> >in the election schedule.
> Rob Courtney
> Policy Analyst
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202 637 9800
> fax 202 637 0968
Dany VANDROMME | Directeur du GIP RENATER
Reseau National de Telecommunications
pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche
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 - 09:26:22 PDT