RE: [council] Draft NC Resolution reform

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Philip,

 

I support geographic diversity - this is a requirement.

 

The next step to consider its implementation.  There are usually a number of ways of meeting a requirement.

 

We should first consider if it is feasible to meet this requirement within the Blueprint.  If it is not achievable we need to provide a well argued case for changing the Blueprint.  This is different from stating up front that the blueprint is unworkable, or re-stating something that we have already stated in our comments to the Board before the Board voted on the Blueprint.

 

I think we all agree on the outcome.  We seem to disagree on the next steps from here.

 

Regards,

Bruce

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 5:23 PM
To: NC (list)
Subject: [council] Draft NC Resolution reform

Council,

While I do not disagree with further considering new issues such as the composition of the nominating committee, I do believe that the Board resolution is worth reading again. It was carefully worded for a reason.I made a synopsis of the Board resolution in the proposed NC resolution.

 

Of course the board adopted the blueprint - that was bound to happen, but the Board did more. It did not buy into every nook and cranny of the blueprint. It set conditions such as geographic diversity, it called for more consultation, it said new ideas not in the blueprint should also be considered.

 

To simply give up lobbying on an issue of fundamental importance based on the logic that it is all a done deal is something I find not to my taste and I believe NOT in sympathy with the Board resolution.

 

We are winning friends in the GAC on both sides of the Atlantic for the points in the NC resolution on geographic diversity. We need to ride this wave not let it pass.

 

Philip