Dear Filiz On 28 March 2017 at 01:46, Filiz Yilmaz koalafil@gmail.com wrote:
E. "Review process date" Douglas felt per our charter, the date must come from the EC. Changes have been suggested.
I am not keen on this change. It is now too much up in the air when this report will be requested and created.
The Charter imbues the NRO-EC with the power to specify the date. The language in the proposed Procedure are inconsistent with the Charter and should be removed, unless the Charter changes to support it.
I am not saying the advise to the RIRs should be recalled per se. We just need to sell it to the NRO-EC, and ask them to own and pronounce themselves on it. This way it won't look like the RC made a decision that is outside its remit.
H. "Procedural changes" Douglas did not want someone to simply conclude there was consensus without holding a vote. New text has been suggested.
Sure. But if we are going to be strict on this, then we also need to be strict on reaching more than the quorum requirement in meetings where we will have discussions on procedural changes. Current quorum requires only 5 voting members for meetings, which is not enough to reach the suggested 80% supermajority requirement. Alternatively we can utilize electronic voting for procedural changes so that potential low attendance to meetings will not be a burden to bring the necessary changes to procedures.
When I was suggesting edits, this is exactly what I had in mind. 80% vote is practical once the voting is detached from meetings. Mechanisms like electronic voting provide just what we need to engender this level of participation.
Regards,