Re: [council] Status report on implementation of evolution and reform

["Harold J. Feld" <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

We need to resolve the more fundamental issue of what do we think we are 
doing.

1) Do we believe that advice which contradicts the Blueprint will be 
heeded?  It may.  If the NC expressed unified opposition to something, 
this could prompt some changes or soul-searching by the Board, 
particularly if others (such as the GAC) voice similar opposition.  The 
Board members are not, after all, blind, deaf and dumb.  If everyone 
said soemthing decided on at Bucharest was a bad deal, then the BoD 
would likely revisit it.

2) Even if the the BoD will not change their mind, is it still 
worthwhile to document strong disagreement with particular decisions, if 
that disagreement genuinely exists?

These questions need to be answered before we can proceed, since they 
will dictate the nature of our response.

Harold

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> On strategy
> 
> So, if I am to understand Bruce, J.Scott and Ken, your idea is:
> 
> - to do nothing for the moment
> 
> - to see what ideas are generated elsewhere and then react to them
> 
> - to assume that every member of the Board read and agreed to every 
> detail of the blueprint
> 
> - to assume that the rest of the Board resolution meant nothing.
> 
>  
> 
> Is that where we are ? 
> 
>  
> 
> On substance
> 
> The present recommendation for two reps per constituency on the Council 
> will likely mean one US and one for the rest of the world to fight out. 
> The Nom Com is not seeking to balance the diversity of the 
> constituencies' representation but the diversity of the whole NC.  It is 
> this aspect that the NC resolution seeks to address. Does the IPC want 
> two reps only ? Do the Registrars want two reps only ? Do you assume the 
> nom com may appoint other IP or Registrar interests as well ? I doubt it.
> 
>  
> 
> Philip
> 
>  
> 
>  
>