This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sebastien Brossier
sebastien at brossier.org
Fri Apr 12 09:59:37 CEST 2024
Correct, but the question is: is it ok for the option to reject the proposed resolution to be missing ? If it is ok, it means that the membership can be forced to adopt any resolution, just by having various similar options. This is a loophole that could be exploited for nefarious purposes. If not, the vote as proposed is invalid. To be clear: my intention is not to promote a rejection of the charging scheme. This is a more general concern. I find very suspicious to see a resolution proposal that can't be rejected, in the general meeting of a membership-based association. Sebastien Brossier On 11/04/2024 12:39, Fergal Cunningham wrote: > Dear Sebastien, > > According to Article 18.3 of the Articles of Association, if a proposed > resolution contains various options, the method of instant run-off > voting is used, as described in the same article (similar to the > elections of EB members). > > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-818/#article-18-general-meeting-voting <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-818/#article-18-general-meeting-voting> > > Best regards, > Fergal > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:52 AM Sebastien Brossier > <sebastien at brossier.org <mailto:sebastien at brossier.org>> wrote: > > On 10/04/2024 14:54, Fergal Cunningham wrote: > > The vote for this proposal would not allow all options to be > rejected. > > It would be run with the instant run-off vote format in the same > way as > > the Executive Board election is run. So members would be asked to > vote > > for the three options in order of preference and the scheme that > > achieves more than 50% of preferences either on the first round or > > second round would be deemed to have been chosen. > > > Hi, > > Is this even legal, wrt the articles of association ? > Holding a vote to adopt an item, without a reject option. > > > Best regards, > Sebastien Brossier
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms-circle] Re: Re: [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2025 Proposals
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]