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

Tue Jan 17 20:01:49 CET 2017

Thanks Anna

On 17 Jan 2017 14:00, "Anna Loup" <loupac5556 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/c60e0067/attachment.html>