[NCUC-EC] Formulation and Invitation to join the Task Force on NCUC Procedural Rules

Tue Jan 17 20:00:50 CET 2017

Hello all,

My email didnt sent last night, see below:

I think these look great and hopefully inspire a lot of conversation. The
draft procedures for public comments is what I am most excited about. Lets
get to work!

Best,
Anna

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:19 AM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello
>
> Since I have not received any other feedback or response I am going to
> announce the formulation of this task force and invite the members to join.
>
> Best
>
> Farzaneh
>
> Farzaneh
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Good. I think even if Maryan can not wrangle the "closed but open to
>> members" note, an open invite on list to all members and the
>> occasional reminder would be good.
>>
>> Again, open drafting has many layers and procedures and, yes, there
>> can be transparency to the absurd but this would not be the case.
>>
>> Even in any open meeting, those who are not a part of the Constituency
>> will have their thoughts weighted with much less weight than that of
>> those who already belong and are knowledgeable of the constituency's
>> works. Plus, drafting is a process not a meeting.
>>
>> However, don't take this as trying to convince you anymore. I
>> understand this is a new effort, very valuable, and with a clear
>> direction as to where the EC wants to go. So open, not open, may it
>> happen and thrive.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Renata
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Tatiana Tropina
>> <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > +1 Ines. Thanks for reminding me that I forgot to mention in my email
>> that
>> > we will achieve the desirable level of transparency by sharing the
>> > transcript, as Farzy said. Moreover, we can send an email with the
>> summary
>> > of the meeting for those who have no time to listen to the recording to
>> the
>> > NCUC mailing list, which has open archives.
>> > Cheers
>> > Tanya
>> >
>> > On 16 January 2017 at 19:11, hfaiedh ines <hfaiedh.ines2 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I think it should be open to NCUC members only and afterwards it will
>> be
>> >> shared anyways. I think we need to hear more and focus mainly on our
>> >> constituency members' opinions .
>> >>
>> >> 2017-01-16 13:04 GMT-05:00 Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com
>> >:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Farzaneh,
>> >>> thanks. I agree with opening this meeting for the NCUC membership
>> only,
>> >>> even we have to list it as a closed meeting to achieve this. I rather
>> find
>> >>> it awkward that other constituencies or non-members will have a say in
>> >>> drafting our procedural rules. Drafting procedural rules is not an
>> easy
>> >>> task, so increasing entropy and distraction won't get us focused. Am
>> sorry,
>> >>> but the suggestion to open such a meeting for everyone gets
>> transparency and
>> >>> openness to the level of absurd. We need the procedural rules to
>> operate
>> >>> effectively, not to please any other constituencies, and it's our
>> members
>> >>> who have to work on this and have a say on this.
>> >>> Warm regards
>> >>> Tatiana
>> >>>
>> >>> On 16 January 2017 at 18:58, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
>> >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Tapani
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks. I have asked Maryam and she said she will see if they can
>> add it
>> >>>> on the schedule as open to NCUC members.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If not then it will be closed to other constituencies so and acs. Of
>> >>>> course the recording and transcript will be published on ncuc
>> website and on
>> >>>> our wiki for everyone to see.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Other ec members: please advise on keeping our procedural drafting
>> >>>> meetings amd consultations only open to ncuc members and not to other
>> >>>> constituencies, advisory committees etc.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 16 Jan 2017 12:33, "Tapani Tarvainen" <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info
>> >
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi Farzaneh,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> If I've understood correctly, you can't exclude other constituencies
>> >>>>> if you call it open meeting. And the only other option is closed.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In the past we have, for example, called EC meetings closed but then
>> >>>>> announced all of our members will be welcome.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I guess you could also make a meeting open and simply ignore what
>> >>>>> non-members say, although that'd be somewhat awkward, too.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Tapani
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:46:59AM -0500, farzaneh badii
>> >>>>> (farzaneh.badii at gmail.com) wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> > Renata
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > what do you mean by we will hold closed meetings? We will hold
>> >>>>> > meetings
>> >>>>> > open to all ncuc members.  Naturally we won't allow people from
>> other
>> >>>>> > consituencies and stakeholder groups who are not ncuc members to
>> >>>>> > express
>> >>>>> > their opinion on what procedural rules ncuc should function on.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Since I don't believe the meeting held with ncuc members is
>> closed I
>> >>>>> > wouldn't add your suggestion.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Best
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Farzaneh
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > On 16 Jan 2017 10:36, "Renata Aquino Ribeiro" <raquino at gmail.com>
>> >>>>> > wrote:
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Hi
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > On 3 I'd add
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > "We will hold closed meetings..."
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > I've also taken a look at my workload and won't be joining the TF
>> but
>> >>>>> > will participate as EC responsibility.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Best,
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Renata
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 9:04 PM, farzaneh badii
>> >>>>> > <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> > > I drafted the below to send to the NCUC members about procedural
>> >>>>> > > rules
>> >>>>> > task
>> >>>>> > > force. Let me know if it's ok and if you agree with the
>> process.I'd
>> >>>>> > > like
>> >>>>> > to
>> >>>>> > > announce on list no later than Tuesday. We can either follow the
>> >>>>> > > process I
>> >>>>> > > am recommending below or leave it to the task force to come up
>> with
>> >>>>> > > a
>> >>>>> > > process of how to come up with the procedural rule!
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > Dear NCUC Members,
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > This is to  announce the formulation of the task force on NCUC
>> >>>>> > > procedural
>> >>>>> > > rules. You are invited to join this task force. It will commence
>> >>>>> > > its work
>> >>>>> > > next week.The leader of the task force is Anna Loup.
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > Some background and the process:
>> >>>>> > > The executive committee is in charge of issuing procedural rules
>> >>>>> > > for
>> >>>>> > various
>> >>>>> > > functions of NCUC. We have decided to convene this task force
>> which
>> >>>>> > includes
>> >>>>> > > the EC and interested members as well in order to draft the
>> >>>>> > > procedural
>> >>>>> > > rules. The process of drafting and approval of the procedural
>> rules
>> >>>>> > > is as
>> >>>>> > > follows:
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > 1. The task force drafts the procedural rules
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > 2. The procedural rules will be sent to the members for comments
>> >>>>> > > and
>> >>>>> > > changes.
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > 3. These comments and changes will be resolved by the task force
>> >>>>> > > and the
>> >>>>> > EC.
>> >>>>> > > We will hold meetings with the members to resolve the issues,
>> and
>> >>>>> > > will
>> >>>>> > lead
>> >>>>> > > discussions on the mailing list.
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > 4. After the resolution of the comments, the document will then
>> be
>> >>>>> > > sent
>> >>>>> > for
>> >>>>> > > final comments to the members,
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > 5.  After the final comments are resolved, the EC will
>> deliberate
>> >>>>> > > on its
>> >>>>> > > approval.
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > The task force is open to all of the NCUC members. You can
>> either
>> >>>>> > > be an
>> >>>>> > > active member or an observer. You can join the task force at any
>> >>>>> > > time but
>> >>>>> > we
>> >>>>> > > will start our work by next week.
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > The following document identifies those areas that need
>> procedural
>> >>>>> > > rules .
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Pg0PruKjtNNgnTZmrZ8Upaf
>> lzFiaUH
>> >>>>> > RWIEbjrvCH5A/edit?usp=sharing
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > If you think there are other issues that should be addressed
>> please
>> >>>>> > > feel
>> >>>>> > > free to insert your comments.
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > Best
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > Farzaneh
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>> >>>>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> >>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>> >>>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> >>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>> >>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> >>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > NCUC-EC mailing list
>> > NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCUC-EC mailing list
>> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20170117/1e82c13a/attachment.html>