In the OPs, you should have those processes documented. Usually
you have a quorum requirement for meetings and teleconferences. Decisions made
there by consensus or by a particular voting process should be binding. Things
that require a vote by the membership – approval of the MoU, Ops,
representatives etc should be voted on by the reps to the RALO Assembly (2 per
ALS and 2 for unaffiliated users in the NARALO according to the OPs)
But you need to approve the Operating principles first in order
to operate by them!
In the interim, from the messages I’ve seen on the list,
you guys have agreed processes to vote on the operating principles (or had –
now there’s discussion about counting the votes) and an interim Chair to
manage the process.
Maybe Bret, Nick or Luc can send a message to the whole list to
remind everyone of the process and timeline agreed to for the voting on the OP
and MoU and the election of the Reps etc. and you can move ahead to finish the
admin bits and get onto the substance of AtLarge representation.
Jacqueline
From: RJGlass |
America@Large [mailto:jipshida@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:44 PM
To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com
Cc: Thompson, Darlene; Danny Younger; Luc Faubert; Wendy Seltzer; NA
Discuss
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Legal hooks in the MOU
how do we decide what we vote
on and what we just discuss as a quorum and accept?
Randy Glass
A@L
On 5/21/07, Jacqueline A. Morris
< jam@jacquelinemorris.com>
wrote:
Hi everyone
If everyone has to agree to
everything then nothing would get done. There are processes to deal with
disagreements, and if there is no consensus, then you vote. Veto power would
basically prevent NA region from moving forward on the many vital and urgent
policy issues in which the individual users you represent are interested.
If you revisit every decision
taken in a meeting that someone doesn't agree with (especially if they
didn't attend the meeting) that seems to me to be trying to institute a veto by
delay. You have processes. If the decisions are taken in accordance with the
process, then they should not be revisited unless new information, new members
or a sea-change in the thinking of the group occurs. In that case, you should
have processes to allow for revisiting these decisions (usually 2/3 majority in
a vote)
Just my $0.02
BTW – Bret, Mr. Interim
Chair – how are you going on the MoU and OP adoption? I saw a couple
emails that indicated confusion about the vote counting – has that been
sorted?
Jacqueline
From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 11:53 AM
To: Danny Younger; Luc Faubert; Wendy Seltzer; NA Discuss
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Legal hooks in the MOU
Danny,
It is truly a shame, then, that neither you
nor Wendy were on that last conference call. You could have voiced your
opinions therein. As it was, as Luc states, everybody on the call
voted to remove those paragraphs so its rather a null issue now - as I see
it.
Darlene
From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
on behalf of Danny Younger
Sent: Sat 5/19/2007 8:44 AM
To: Luc Faubert; Wendy Seltzer; NA Discuss
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Legal hooks in the MOU
I support Wendy's position. Until such
time as
At-Large directors are seated on the ICANN Board (an
act that would honor the spirit of the White Paper
upon which ICANN was built), I don't intend to give an
inch on this point.
Had at-Large Directors been on the Board, do any of
you think that we would have gone the last five years
without any registrant data escrow services?!! Do you
think that with At-Large Directors on the Board that
registrants would still be paying up to $260 to redeem
a domaine name from the Redemption Grace Period?
I'm not interested in "playing nice". We need to have
our community protected, and if legal channels are all
that remain, then I will not support any course of
action that serves to eliminate third-party
beneficiary rights.
--- Luc Faubert <LFaubert@conceptum.ca>
wrote:
> Hello Wendy,
>
> Yes, I noticed you put these paragraphs back after I
> deleted them
> yesterday.
>
> I deleted the paragraphs because of the unanimous
> agreement of the
> people on our last conference call to do so, as
> documented in the
> minutes of the call I sent to the list on 04.29.
>
> I appreciate your concerns. However, the clauses do
> not represent the
> spirit of mutuality vehiculated in the MOU and the
> probality that ICANN
> will agree to an MOU carrying these clauses is zero.
>
> So I would appreciate that you respect the will of
> the majority and not
> put them back after I delete them again.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> _________________________________________
> Luc Faubert
> Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du
> changement /
> IT governance and change management consulting
> +1 514 236 5129
> www.LucFaubert.com
> www.LucFaubert.com/blog
> www.isoc.qc.ca
> www.ccig.ca
> www.uqbm.qc.ca
> www.maillons.qc.ca
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org]
> On Behalf
> > Of Wendy Seltzer
> > Sent: 19 mai 2007 07:44
> > To: NA Discuss
> > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Legal hooks in the MOU
> >
> > I replaced what I thought were important terms in
> the draft
> > MoU. Let me explain further why I think they're
> important.
> >
> > > 6.4 Enforcement. In recognition of the
> considerable time
> > and effort expended by the signing organizations,
> ICANN
> > agrees that its obligations are legally
> enforceable in the
> > courts [or arbitral forums] of [jurisdiction]. In
> the event
> > of breach, ICANN shall be liable for the relying
> parties'
> > costs and fees.
> >
> > I think we want this to be more than just pretty
> words on
> > paper (or screen), but a set of enforceable
> obligations to
> > which groups can hold ICANN. This language
> specifies the
> > recourse in case of breach.
> >
> > > 6.5 Third-party beneficiaries. This agreement is
> made for
> > the benefit of the general public. Individual
> Internet users
> > are its intended beneficiaries, and its terms are
> expressly
> > enforceable by any member of the public.
> >
> > The At-Large is supposed to be the mechanism by
> which the
> > public has input to and participation in ICANN,
> say the
> > Bylaws. If we're creating a RALO, we should be
> trying to
> > give the public as many channels as the structure
> allows --
> > including, where necessary, the channel of legal
> enforcement.
> > Third-party beneficiary clauses are the standard
> way to
> > express that public-benefit aspect.
> >
> > Unfortunately, past experience with ICANN suggests
> that legal
> > action is the most effective means to get ICANN's
> attention
> > and action. For recent examples, ICANN did not
> respond to
> > the RegisterFly crisis until a class action
> lawsuit was
> > filed. ICANN renewed Verisign's contract,
> allowing price
> > increases that harm the end-user, after Verisign
> filed suit.
> >
> > I'm not suggesting that we sue ICANN, but leaving
> that option
> > available to us or to others strengthens our
> bargaining
> > position far short of litigation.
> >
> > These legal "hooks" could provide much greater
> opportunity
> > for real progress by this RALO and the public.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Wendy
> >
> > --
> > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org
> > Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow,
> Berkman
> > Center for Internet & Society
> > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> > http://www.chillingeffects.org/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NA-Discuss mailing list
> > NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl
> arge-lists.icann.org
> > ---
> > Draft MoU with ICANN:
> > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
> >
> > Draft Operating Principles:
> > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
> >
> > Draft Code of Conduct:
> > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> ---
> Draft MoU with ICANN:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
>
> Draft Operating Principles:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
>
> Draft Code of Conduct:
> http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
_______________________________________________
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
---
Draft MoU with ICANN:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/813 - Release Date: 5/20/2007 7:54
AM
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/813 - Release Date: 5/20/2007 7:54 AM
_______________________________________________
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
---
Draft MoU with ICANN:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct:
http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
--
-------------------------
AmericaAtLarge.org
RJPacific.com
DDMF.org
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/813 - Release Date: 5/20/2007 7:54
AM