Diane,
> > Now there's an interesting phrase! Does anyone (Diane?) have
> > an exegesis?
>
> On routine business conducted by the full (elected) Board, a
> simple majority of those present (given a quorum) is required to
> act. The passage quoted above (VI.2.e) is intended to remove the
> interested SO from voting on its own proposal, thereby requiring a
> higher level of support from the remainder of the Board (including
> the at-large) to approve it.
Yes, I understand the conflict-of-interest aspect as regards the SO-
selectee's *votes. Its the specification that the members
themselves are to be ignored that tickled me -- arguably, they
couldnt even speak to the proposal.
===========
Karl,
> I actually like the notion that the board has full plenary powers
> to amend, ignore, or reject an SO proposal on any arbitrary grounds
> and that the board has full plenary power to initiate and adopt any
> policy it finds appropriate, even if impinges on the area nominally
> covered by an SO.
...
>
> I am concerned that there is no vehicle through which
> non-commercial and individuals can participate in the definition
> of policy regarding domain names, IP address allocation, or
> protocol parameters.
...
> I very much approve of placing the responsibility for Internet policy
> squarely on the shoulders of the board members.
>
> Exercise of that responsibility empowers the board members to engage in
> the merits of policy proposals from SOs. Thus, for example, the board now
> clearly has the power to override, amend, or repeal any policy that arises
> from the PSO regarding the assignment of protocol parameters.
>
I'm confused. You'd like to have a indiv/n-c SO that could make
recommendations, but you accept that since the BoD takes the
responsibility, it can take or make proposals where it likes. In this
context, it seems my earlier quesiton is still relevant: if the AL
membership gets it together and made a recommendation, why
shouldnt it fly just as far and as compellingly as if it was from an
SO?
And (to touch up the edge with a little ol Arkansas stone) if that
implies that indivs and n-c DN holders would have to behave like an
SO, is it consistent to wait for Big-o-Daddy's *permission to quote-
organize-unquote? Wouldnt the strongest argument for taking an
ALM proposal seriously be that it originated in an individualized,
non-commercial -- i.e. democratic -- way?
kerry
