[members-discuss] amendment proposal for the Article of association

On 28/03/2012 11:35, Sascha Luck wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:13:00AM +0100, James Blessing wrote:
>
>> I think that the 2% limit is about the right level for something to be
>> "forced" onto the agenda.
>
> Could someone clarify whether this means 2% of all members or 2% of
> those who have registered for the GM? If the former, this may never be
> possible to achieve - at RIPE63, the turnout for even a contentious
> issue as RPKI was below 5% of membership.

This is 2% of the "current" membership

> Over 95% of the membership don't even bother to vote, they are not
> likely to participate in an agenda battle.

All you need to do is canvas 2% to support adding it to the agenda, it 
then becomes a normal process as if the EB had added it to the agenda

>> If that's the case maybe creating a process for the EB to consider
>> motions with a lower submission threshold might be more appropriate (if
>> there isn't one already)? The EB could be free to amend or reject any
>> suggestion as they see fit and if the EB decide not to progress it you
>> can always follow the direct route above.
>
> I think this is the current situation and may be acceptable if there
> were transparency as to who proposed which items and how such proposals
> were disposed of...

Agree with the transparency part.

J


-- 
James Blessing
+44 7989 039 476
Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA
Limelight Networks