On 21 Aug 2004 at 14:33, Adam Peake wrote:
> This sudden interest from the EC in WSIS after deciding (and not
> informing the members) that the NCUC would not be taking part in the
> ICANN "WSIS Workshop Planning Group" seems a bit of a change of
> heart.

The EC did not decide upon details of our WSIS participation. Milton has
discussed his position over the main list, and I also think it this is
something that the whole constituency should decide upon.

As an EC member I see it that way: We have this chance to independendly
propose names for the WGIG, but have to come up with it relatively fast.
A formal election seems to be very complicated for the "willowing"
process, that's why Milton proposed the filtering by EC until all are
happy. I agree that we should also include our policy body (I for my side
feel pretty incompetend to make a decision). When we have too many strong
candidates that we (NCUC) cannot decide upon, we may have to vote
somehow, again, all of NCUC. Anyway, sounds like a lot of work.

> And it's important that any future position statement from the NCUC
> on this go through the processes we have in the charter (a policy
> committee issue, not the administrative EC?)
True.

> Anyway.  Some transparency please.  Please open the EC archive, and
> backdate a couple of weeks so we can understand how this came about.
It was Milton's proposal during our last chat meeting. There was no long
discussion about it. As I said, I saw it as a proposal to find a "modus
vivendi", not a way of "forcing decisions by setting the agenda" as so
common for ICANN.

> Kind of related -- did Frannie take over the NA Executive Committee seat?
Yes, she already participated and even got the gavel ( ;-) because she
entered the channel first)

        --iliya