[Ec-ncuc] ncuc members list

[Edward Morris]

Hi Brenden,

I, of course, disagree. But with respect :)

Given the policy discussions underway in nontransparent, private forums
 I'd like to stick to our Charter and to precedent. Our Charter mandates we
have a discussion list and Discuss has historical precedent and is a more
accurate reflection of our history in this matter. To switch to "Members"
is a policy change that should be debated amongst active EC members. I
prefer the status quo. I guess I can ask: Why do we need to change our
precedent and ignore our Charter? I may not have thought of something.

BTW, I had thought of members at ncuc.org along with info at ncuc.org, webmaster @
ncuc.org and Chair at ncuc.org as being our initial e-mail addresses. Those
had clear purposes. Comments?

Anyway, I vote for discuss, our Chair has voted for discuss...waiting for
four others to debate / weigh in so we can do what all agree: get moving
forward on this pronto. My opinion is known, this is the last I'll be
writing on the topic. Our world's will not end regardless of our decision
on this matter. I think. I'm learning that in ICANN-land anything is
possible. :) Increasingly Brenden I'm growing to admire all you have
managed to accomplish  here. Thanks for sticking it out so folks like me
have the possibility to participate.


Ed



On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Brenden Kuerbis <
bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:52 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>wrote:
>
>> I prefer Discuss and do not see a non-turf-strategem argument against it
>
>
> Actually, I thought Joly's suggestion, which had nothing to do with turf
> (and could help with reducing the number of lists), was best:
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:
>
>> I vote for members, then it's clear who you are addressing with no
>> restriction as to purpose.
>>
>
> I support that naming convention.
>
> -- B
>
>
>
>>  It was NCUC discuss before NPOC was added and consistency in the archive
>> would have its virtue.  I am not interested in policing or (dis)couraging
>> people from talking to each other on one list vs the other, do not believe
>> we should preordain a hierarchy or division of labor, but also do not want
>> to spend time fetishizing every small item into a matter of high principle
>> that requires trench warfare.  So I will roll with whatever the consensus
>> among elected EC members is.
>>
>> But it would be great to do soon!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> On Feb 10, 2013, at 10:10, Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > All,
>> >
>> > I believe we've already agreed to create a mailing list for ncuc
>> > members. I would like to go ahead with it without further delay.
>> >
>> > There's been some debate about what the list should be called,
>> > and as far as I can tell calling it simply "ncuc-members" would
>> > be acceptable to everyone.
>> >
>> > Opinions, should I go ahead and create it?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Tapani Tarvainen
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Ec-ncuc mailing list
>> > Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org
>> > http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ec-ncuc mailing list
>> Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ec-ncuc mailing list
> Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ec-ncuc/attachments/20130210/80f7a0f8/attachment-0001.html>