ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process ratherthansome

2006-09-14 17:24:18
There is no need to define the concept of membership. The term 'membership' is 
essentially a legal term and the courts will define it according to their 
convenience. One can be a member without having a vote and can have a vote 
without being a member.

Under English Common Law saying that a thing is so does not make it so. If a an 
agreement that meets the legal definition of a partnership agreement explicitly 
states that it is not a partnership agreement that does not make it any less a 
partnership nor does it extinguish the liabilities, &ct. of such.


All that is needed to hold an election is to define the franchise. The 
franchise in this case would be defined in the same manner as the NOMCON is at 
present.



-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn(_at_)mindspring(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 2:53 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election 
Process ratherthansome

Hi -

Strangely absent from this discussion are any examples of 
standards bodies that satisfy the critics' criteria.  Perhaps 
some examples of standards organizations successfully using 
processes meeting those criteria would be helpful to focus 
this dicussion.

Randy


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf