Re: [council] NC VOTE REQUIRED- Rules for non members

["erica" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

I am happy to support.. ...

The wording is flexible and can be amended.  Meanwhile it does provide some much needed guidance on the committee structure.

 

 

erica

----- Original Message -----

From: Philip Sheppard

To: NC (list)

Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2001 4:39 PM

Subject: Fw: [council] NC VOTE REQUIRED- Rules for non members

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Philip Sheppard

To: Cochetti, Roger

Sent: 11 July 2001 10:27

Subject: Re: [council] NC VOTE REQUIRED- Rules for non members

Roger, I believe you are wrongly interpreting the proposed guidelines.

 

- They state ("typically one from each constituency"). The typical is intended to give the NC flexibility where it makes sense.

- given there was a concern about capture, a guideline on this was needed, hence the prohibition on two ICANN-relevant organisations.

Once a phrase like this is used it needs to be defined and relying on NC interpretation is practical. If an NC member abuses this privilege, the NC can discourage this, vote to over rule, or change the guideline.

 

All NC procedures are guidelines, statements of intent of how we want to run ourselves - if we try to write them with the pen of a lawyer they will be lengthy, complex and ultimately ignored.

 

I would encourage you to vote in favour and encourage all the NC to vote!   At present this vote fails by default - as no votes count against.

 

Philip