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