>From the chair, of the non-commercial constituency:

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] 
Sent: Friday, 17 June 2005 1:04 AM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: nhklein@gmx.net; gnso-dow123@gnso.icann.org; robin@ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-dow123] Voting rules for the combined WHOIS taskforce

NCUC favors one vote per constituency, and at the TF level we favor
giving a formal vote to the ALAC. It seems clear that formal votes
should be uniform and should not be affected by accidents of who happens
to be on a call. 

However, the voting issue is quite separate from the participation
issue. We could go either way on this one. Although nominally we started
operating on the idea that only one member could speak, we have broken
that rule more often than not, usually because each participant has some
unique knowledge. E.g., in NCUC Kathy Kleiman is a lawyer and I am not;
in BC sometimes Marilyn knows something Mr. Farris may not and vice
versa, etc. And of course the registrars are nothing if not various in
their voices and opinions! In general, restricting communication on TF
calls can be cumbersome and stifling. Most of us are aware of who is
speaking and what interest group they represent, so while the risk of a
major imbalance in dialogue exists and should be guarded against, we
need not be overly restrictive in our attempt to compensate for it.

>>> "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> 6/15/2005 8:43:18
AM >>>
Now that we have combined the three task forces we could either:
- provide three votes per constituency, and allow three members per
constituency to speak on a teleconference or physical meeting Or
- operate with a single vote per constituency, and allow only one member
per constituency to represent the constituency's views in a
teleconference or physical meeting