[governance] Results of charter amendment vote

[Jeffrey A. Williams]

Ian and all,

  If Paul would not be interested in such a WG as you suggest I would.
I would however rely heavely on Paul's and Erics input and advise 
accordingly.  I also agree that Paul or Eric would be good choices
for WG chairs for such purposes.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>Sent: Sep 29, 2009 4:10 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote
>
>
>Paul, I would like to think there is a way your offer could be taken up, and
>as I suggested earlier I do not believe the charters problems can be solved
>by dealing with one little bit at a time. There are a number of sections
>which need amending and clarification and it would be a great service to
>this group if someone would take this on. I would certainly support you if
>you were willing to head up such a working group - but for me, with only
>about a month of my term as co coordinator to run, (I am counting the days)
>I would not be prepared to take a central role of any sort. BY all means
>write to me off list if you would like to take this on and I would happily
>work with you towards getting a working group established.
>
>In the meantime - we have a month to go to the IGF meeeting, and I do hope
>that on this list we can start to put attention towards what we are doing as
>a group there and some of the issues we need to address.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 30/09/09 6:12 AM, "Paul Lehto" <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd be happy to draft a charter amendment if one were desired, but
>> without the stipulation that the principles of reason and construction
>> of language apply with force, literally anything I would draft, no
>> matter how clear, would be a waste of time and utterly ineffective in
>> binding the freedom of administrators (the point of such election
>> provisions).
>> 
>> Also, in this specific case, no further rules are needed in the
>> charter to resolve the question, because the 2/3 rule implies that the
>> 2/3 must exist in a normal election day time period and not over a
>> week, month, or year.
>> 
>> If the above case is not sufficiently clear in its prohibition of
>> extensions for purposes or effect of meeting the 2/3 rule, then no
>> amount of drafting, no matter how precise, will be sufficient to tie
>> the hands of any person of even average intelligence who is committed
>> to getting around the words and told he's got the "leeway" to do so.
>> And I consider all here quite above average in intelligence.
>> 
>> So, on another subject, I'd be happy to draft an amendment, but on
>> this one it's hopeless.
>> On 9/29/09, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I believe this vote has been so run and believe there is no applicable law
>>>> that negates the actions
>>>> taken by the coordinators.  In my opinion, they have behaved within the
>>>> limits of the charter.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> +1
>>> 
>>> If there was no appeal made within the 72 hours, the issue is moot.
>>> 
>>> Paul, please write a charter amendment if you feel that voting rules need to
>>> be further specified.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> McTim
>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
>>> indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>> 
>> 
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance