+1 |
Dear Co -Chairs Perhaps it is the time that you make a sum up of all these contradictory statements and provide the status of discussions. Expectant your reaction, I remain . Kavouss Now Questions to To Bruce or Chairman of the Board I formally request you or the chairman of the Board to clearly provide the position of the Board taking into account apparent discrepancies between the statements and testimony already made since the creation of CCWG.
The Board needs to explicitly and clearly reply to the following questions
1. Question 1,
Irrespective of previous statements and or testimony, does the Board accept or reject the CMSM as it is on 11 October 2015?
2. Question 2,
Irrespective of previous statements and or testimony, does the Board accept or Reject the Sole Designator Model?
3. Question 3
Under the MEM, how the MEM Issue Group functions? Does it need to form an Unincorporated Association among the members of the Group?
4. Question 4,
At what Occasion/Time or under what circumstances the MEM Issue Group will be established
5. Question 5
Who are the members of the MEM Issue Group?
6. Question 6
Is there a quorum for the MEM Issue Group?
6.1 What are the criteria for that Quorum?
6.2 If the quorum is met, then how the decision will be made?
6.2.1 By adoption of a resolution on consensus basis? Please confirm; or
6.2.2 By Voting of SOs ACs; Pleases confirm
7. Question 7
What happens if the Quorum is not reached?
7.1 The case is dead? Then the community power is not implemtable?
7.2 Then what after?
8. Question 8
How the SOs and ACs conclude on a given petition?
8.1 By adoption of a resolution on consensus basis? Please confirm; or
8.2 By Voting in SOs and Consensus in ACs ; Pleases confirm
9. Question 9
In case that the members of the Issue MEM Group are chairs of the SOs and ACs
9.1 What is the fiduciary and accountability status of each of those chairs of SOs and ACs?
9.2 What happens, if one or more chairs refrain to take the required action on proceeding with Binding arbitration, IN case the Unincorporated Association is not established and thus individual So and AC leaders has to / forced to individually file an arbitration ?
9.3 How many SO /AC leaders are required to initiate to file an arbitration? Or one is sufficient?
9.4 In the latter case ,what would be the status of the arbitration if only supported 7 initiated by one SO /AC while other SOs and ACs refrain from initiation?
10. Question 10
101. What is the relation between Mem Issue Group and Standing Panel?
103. Which subjects are submitted to Standing Panel and which subject are submitted to IRP
11. Question 11
Should the outcome from MEM Issue Group be on consensus basis ,why mem requires that the decision should be valid unless there is one advice from an AC against it ? Doesn’t it mean that one AC consensus advice is sufficient to kill the outcome? Doesn’t it mean by having one AC consensus advice against the issue and vetoing the case that AC alone will capture the entire MEN Issue Group?
12. Question 12
If all those questions are satisfactorily replied, is there any guarantee that the CWG requirements to implement PTI process would are fully met ?
Kavouss
2015-10-11 6:47 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>:
|