Re: [ncc-charter] another try and text on non-voting

From: Dany Vandromme (vandrome@renater.fr)
Date: Thu Sep 07 2000 - 23:31:09 PDT

  • Next message: Kent Crispin: "Re: [ncc-charter] another try and text on non-voting"

    On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Adam Peake wrote:

    > Dany,
    >
    > I believe Rob Courtney also favored option 2 for the replacement "accession
    > of the AdCom member with the fourth-highest level of votes" etc.
    >
    > I would avoid "unanimous" (it requires people to respond, perhaps in a
    > timely manner), but no point arguing, Milton's new words are acceptable to
    > me:
    -
    I agree with you. Unanimous seemed to me also too strong, I would have
    prefered "more than one" or "majority of" adcom members, but at that
    point, it is not so important and we could also live with Milton's words.
    -
    >
    > Non-voting members can participate in Constituency discussion lists,
    > propose and discuss resolutions and participate in all physical meetings.
    > Non-voting members have no voting rights in the constituency and its
    > processes and cannot participate in constituency Adcom teleconference calls
    > unless invited by unanimous consent of Adcom members.
    >
    > OK to proceed as far as I'm concerned.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Adam
    -
    Good,
    I hope proceeding will succeed now on
    -
    >
    > >On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Milton Mueller wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >> ----- Original Message -----
    > >> From: "Dany Vandromme"
    > >>
    > >> > > Note, I used "should not" rather the "cannot" re. participation in Adcom
    > >> > > calls to give room for the Adcom to invite a non voting members if such
    > >> > > need arose.
    > >>
    > >> This can be improved, see below.
    > >>
    > >> > > Associations or organizations whose specific goals are to represent
    > >> > > 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 have no voting rights in the
    > >> > > constituency and its processes* and should not participate in
    > >> > > constituency Adcom teleconference calls.
    > >>
    > >> Question: what does a non-voting member do to become a "non-voting member"?
    > >> I assume that there is language somewhere that requires them to go through
    > >> the same application process as voting members. If not, this must be
    > >> addressed in your revisions.
    > >>
    > >> Replace last part of last sentence with: "cannot participate in constituency
    > >> Adcom teleconference calls unless invited by unanimous consent of Adcom
    > >> members."
    > >>
    > >> > > 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.
    > >>
    > >> OK
    > >>
    > >> > > [New Text]
    > >> > > |Political organizations that are non-governmental are eligible for
    > >> > > |voting status. A political organization shall be considered
    > >> > > |"non-governmental" if its primary purpose is to influence governmental
    > >> > > |or public policy, but not to hold governmental offices or to elect
    > >> > > |government officials. Ineligible political organizations are those
    > >> > > |whose primary purpose is to hold government offices and/or elect
    > >> > > |government officials. In unclear or borderline cases, the voting
    > >> status
    > >> > > |of a political organization will be decided by the constituency
    > >> > > |membership after review of the application on its merits.
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >>
    > >-
    > >Last suggestions of Milton are OK for me.
    > >
    > >Can we proceed now with others points:
    > >I submitted a 2 option choice for the replacement article.
    > >So far, option 2 seems to be supported by Vany, Adam and myself, whereas
    > >Option 1 is supported (at least) by Milton.
    > >
    > >Could we go to a decison about that quickly, and get the adcom/nc election
    > >process started, together with the posting of the charter proposal to the
    > >constituency?
    > >
    > >Let me remind you that we are already late, and things are getting worst
    > >everyday (in terms of schedule).
    > >
    > >Best regards
    > >
    > >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 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 23:31:14 PDT