Re: [council] Re: NC's UDRP WG

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

happy new year raul...

i see no problem with alternates,  but it is each constituency's
responsibility to keep abreast thru their representatives, of names council
actions and various dnso activities.
it would be unfair to the other constituencies to have to "slow the pace" or
defer actions, so that someone who "couldn't make the meetings" or doesn't
have time to stay up-to-speed can get caught up.

so far there have been some members who have not been able to attend many
of the teleconferences and, frankly, if those parties don't have the time to
give to this effort, then they should step down be replaced by their
constituencies with others who have the capacity to participate. we all have
"other jobs" and responsibilities and we all have to make special efforts to
stay abreast & involved.

best wishes

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: Raúl Echeberría <raul@inia.org.uy>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: [council] Re: NC's UDRP WG


> >With respect to the issue of proxies, while it is clear that NC
> >members can use proxies for meetings that they can't attend, does this
> >extend to have them serving on "subgroups" (or whatever we choose call to
> >them) and carrying out NC member duties?
>
>
> I see your point, but let me disagree with you and Theresa.
>
> Each constituency should decide what can and/or what can not do an
alternate.
> Milton participated in the LA meeting because the constituency decided it.
> Nobody can object it from outside of the NCDNHC.
>
> We are including the existence of formal alternates in our charter (which
> is under revision) and we'll decide if an alterante can participate in a
> teleconference, in a physical meeting.  However I believe that a
> representative and her/his alternate could not participate in the same
time
> in the same activity.
>
> Theresa, you said:
> "... The only time I think there is an acceptable use of an alternate,
> as was decided for the voting of DNSO representatives to the ICANN Board,
is
> if there is a voting issue for which the constituency representative is
not
> available..."
>
> I (and nobody else) never objected the participation of alternate of
> Jonhatan Cohen in the teleconferences while he was a NC member. My point
of
> view is that we only discussed the participation of alternates in that
> election, but we didn't decided anything about other roles of an
alternate.
>
> Sorry for my summer english (yeeees, we are in summer here, time of
holidays)
>
>
>
>
>
> Raul Echeberria
> raul@inia.org.uy
>
>