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