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