<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Fair points all.<BR>
<BR>
It's more by accident than by design that we have cross membership on the ARB, IRB and Liaison, and (not sure about) the Strategy sub comms - both with each other and on the BoT itself.<BR>
<BR>
I think there is merit in looking at a more formal way to cement that in/have it as a goal, via ByLaws and OPs.<BR>
<BR>
I foresee another 'names matrix' coming soon !<BR>
<BR>
Cheers<BR>
Colin <BR> <BR>
<DIV>
<DIV id=SkyDrivePlaceholder></DIV>> From: joni@ieee-isto.org<BR>> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 16:17:35 -0700<BR>> To: patrick.curry@clarionidentity.com<BR>> CC: Colin.Wallis@dia.govt.nz; lc@kantarainitiative.org<BR>> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] By-Laws and Operating Procedures<BR>> <BR>> Hi Patrick,<BR>> <BR>> Theoretically they connect up at the Board level as all are<BR>> subcommittees of the Board. ARB and IRB have cross membership of at<BR>> least 2 members.<BR>> <BR>> At this point I would actually turn the question back around. How do<BR>> you (Patrick and LC members) think that 1-4 could more harmoniously<BR>> connect and how should they connect with LC?<BR>> <BR>> This is a question back to the LC for input please. We are taking<BR>> suggestions right now as to how we can better the organization so this<BR>> is your chance to help to shape the org!<BR>> <BR>> Thanks,<BR>> Joni<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Patrick Curry<BR>> <patrick.curry@clarionidentity.com> wrote:<BR>> > Joni,<BR>> ><BR>> > How do 1-4 connect harmoniously? More importantly, how does the BOT<BR>> > Strategy, which probably has the most strategic insight, ensure it is in<BR>> > synch with ARB and IRB when they don't have sufficient visibility of them?<BR>> ><BR>> > My sense is that there is a hierarchy of trust/visibility here, where the<BR>> > inner sanctum sees enough to guide KI. I can't see where that is as each<BR>> > 1-4 only sees pieces of the jigsaw - a circle of blinkers, perhaps?<BR>> ><BR>> > Clarity, please!<BR>> ><BR>> > thanks,<BR>> ><BR>> > Patrick<BR>> ><BR>> > Patrick Curry<BR>> > Director<BR>> > Clarion Identity Ltd<BR>> > M: +44 786 024 9074<BR>> > T: +44 1980 620606<BR>> > patrick.curry@clarionidentity.com<BR>> > Disclaimer<BR>> > Internet communications are not secure and therefore Clarion<BR>> > Identity Limited, Rock House, SP3 4JY does not accept legal responsibility<BR>> > for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are solely<BR>> > those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Clarion<BR>> > Identity Limited unless otherwise specifically stated. If this message is<BR>> > received by anyone other than the addressee, please notify the sender and<BR>> > then delete the message and any attachments from your computer.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > On 18 Jun 2012, at 21:10, Joni Brennan wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > Regarding confidentiality...<BR>> ><BR>> > There are a couple of places where Kantara touches confidentiality. I<BR>> > list below which groups, why and how.<BR>> ><BR>> > 1. ARB - all ARB members are bound to confidentiality as they perform<BR>> > reviews for Accreditation and Service Approvals. Members of ARB agree<BR>> > to confidentiality upon joining ARB. All discussions and materials of<BR>> > ARB are confidential unless otherwise agree to by ARB members and<BR>> > affected 3rd parties.<BR>> ><BR>> > 2. IRB - same as above where they perform certification reviews.<BR>> ><BR>> > 3. BoT Liaison Sub-Committee - there is a confidentiality clause<BR>> > posted on the home page and as part of joining the group. This due<BR>> > not to Kantara need for confidentiality but for that of 3rd party<BR>> > documents which are confidential by their (3rd party) rules.<BR>> ><BR>> > 4. BoT strategy - formed as a private and confidential committee of<BR>> > the Board of Trustees. Confidentiality is to allow for more open<BR>> > discussions to occur which may mention 3rd parties. This group seeks<BR>> > to keep details confidential until the point where potential 3rd party<BR>> > stakeholders agree to public discussions.<BR>> ><BR>> > Everything else at Kantara is not confidential, transparent and open<BR>> > to public view/review.<BR>> ><BR>> > I hope that helps explain about the what, why and how's of<BR>> > confidentiality in Kantara.<BR>> ><BR>> > =Joni<BR>> ><BR>> > Joni Brennan<BR>> > Kantara Initiative | Executive Director<BR>> > voice:+1 732-226-4223<BR>> > email: joni @ ieee-isto.org<BR>> ><BR>> > Slideshare - Building Trusted Identity Ecosystems - It takes a village!<BR>> > http://www.slideshare.net/kantarainitiative/kantara-may-2012<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Colin Wallis <Colin.Wallis@dia.govt.nz><BR>> > wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > Now the ‘other Colin’ has a goJ<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Not much to add (in Yellow) but .....<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > From: lc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org<BR>> ><BR>> > [mailto:lc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Colin Soutar<BR>> ><BR>> > Sent: Saturday, 16 June 2012 6:00 a.m.<BR>> ><BR>> > To: 'Heather Flanagan'; 'Kantara Leadership Council Kantara'<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Subject: Re: [KI-LC] By-Laws and Operating Procedures<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Hi Heather -<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > I have some suggestions below for discussion.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > For ease of reference and discussion, I have embedded four suggestions in<BR>> ><BR>> > red font.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Best regards,<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Colin<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Colin Soutar, Ph.D.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > email@colinsoutar.com<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 416 358 1431<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > -----Original Message-----<BR>> ><BR>> > From: lc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org<BR>> ><BR>> > [mailto:lc-bounces@kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Heather Flanagan<BR>> ><BR>> > Sent: June-11-12 4:29 PM<BR>> ><BR>> > To: Kantara Leadership Council Kantara<BR>> ><BR>> > Subject: Re: [KI-LC] By-Laws and Operating Procedures<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > And I have a clarification - this does NOT need a vote, this needs consensus<BR>> ><BR>> > (and yes, there's irony in trying to figure that out for the By-Laws and<BR>> ><BR>> > whatnot).<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > So, let's give this until FRIDAY JUNE 15 (that's this Friday) to see if<BR>> ><BR>> > there is any discussion/dissension/suggestions on the LC. If not, we shall<BR>> ><BR>> > consider consensus reached for these suggestions to go to the Board of<BR>> ><BR>> > Trustees. If there is a great deal of discussion, then we'll put it on the<BR>> ><BR>> > agenda for the LC call next week.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > -Heather<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ----- Original Message -----<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > From: "Heather Flanagan" <hlflanagan@internet2.edu><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > To: "Kantara Leadership Council Kantara" <lc@kantarainitiative.org><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:13:27 PM<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Subject: [KI-LC] By-Laws and Operating Procedures<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > So, final write up on this one from me (completing my current action item<BR>> ><BR>> > for the LC). It is fairly long, but either I contain it all in one thread OR<BR>> ><BR>> > you all get peppered with lots of little emails all requiring your input -<BR>> ><BR>> > both methods have issues, so I just picked one. Based on LC mailing list<BR>> ><BR>> > traffic, meeting notes, and one-on-one conversations, the following areas<BR>> ><BR>> > should be brought to the Board for discussion or approval of new text.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Joni, does the LC need to vote on any/all of those before it goes to the<BR>> ><BR>> > BoT?<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > -Heather<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ----<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > By-Laws - Subscriber class information needs modification OLD<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 1.19 "Subscriber"<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > means any entity that has completed the necessary application forms,<BR>> ><BR>> > satisfi3d the objective subscriber criteria for the Organization, executed a<BR>> ><BR>> > copy of the Member Agreement (with Subscriber selected), and paid the<BR>> ><BR>> > appropriate Subscriber Fee as established by the Board of Trustees. A<BR>> ><BR>> > Subscriber may be an individual, corporation, partnership, join venture,<BR>> ><BR>> > trust, limited liability company, business association, governmental entity<BR>> ><BR>> > or other entity. Subscribers are typically those entities that are<BR>> ><BR>> > Certification and Assurance Programs stakeholders.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > NEW (proposed)<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 1.19 "Subscriber"<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > means any entity that has completed the necessary application forms,<BR>> ><BR>> > satisfied the objective subscriber criteria for the Organization, executed a<BR>> ><BR>> > copy of the Member Agreement (with Subscriber selected), and paid the<BR>> ><BR>> > appropriate Subscriber Fee as established by the Board of Trustees. A<BR>> ><BR>> > Subscriber may be an individual, corporation, partnership, join venture,<BR>> ><BR>> > trust, limited liability company, business association, governmental entity<BR>> ><BR>> > or other entity. Subscribers are typically those entities that are<BR>> ><BR>> > Interoperability Certification and Identity Assurance Accreditation and<BR>> ><BR>> > Approval Programs stakeholders.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > OLD<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 8.3 Subscribers<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > A Subscriber is any entity that has completed the necessary application<BR>> ><BR>> > forms, satisfied the objective subscriber criteria for the Organization,<BR>> ><BR>> > executed a copy of the Member Agreement (with Subscriber selected), and paid<BR>> ><BR>> > the appropriate Subscriber Fee as established by the Board of Trustees. A<BR>> ><BR>> > Subscriber may be an individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture,<BR>> ><BR>> > trust, limited liability company, business association, governmental entity<BR>> ><BR>> > or other entity. Subscribers are typically those entities that are<BR>> ><BR>> > Certification and Assurance Programs stakeholders.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > NEW (proposed)<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 8.3 Subscribers<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > A Subscriber is any entity that has completed the necessary application<BR>> ><BR>> > forms, satisfied the objective subscriber criteria for the Organization,<BR>> ><BR>> > executed a copy of the Member Agreement (with Subscriber selected), and paid<BR>> ><BR>> > the appropriate Subscriber Fee as established by the Board of Trustees. A<BR>> ><BR>> > Subscriber may be an individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture,<BR>> ><BR>> > trust, limited liability company, business association, governmental entity<BR>> ><BR>> > or other entity. Subscribers are typically those entities that are<BR>> ><BR>> > Interoperability Certification and Identity Assurance Accreditation and<BR>> ><BR>> > Approval Programs stakeholders. Subscribers would vote only at the WG/DG<BR>> ><BR>> > level and not in all-member votes.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ----<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > By-Laws - IPR and Copyright<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > May want to review whether it is reasonable for KI to continue with the<BR>> ><BR>> > model of WG/DG deciding their own IPR. Perhaps have a base IPR policy<BR>> ><BR>> > explicitly mentioned in the By-laws and allow WG/DG to do something<BR>> ><BR>> > different if explained/required?<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > CW: Noting that no-one has commented on this which I find surprising. I<BR>> ><BR>> > guess no comment means the status quo continues which I think is more<BR>> ><BR>> > transparent than the baseline/exception alternative.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ----<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > By-Laws - benefits of Membership<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 8.2 "Participants" states that "Participants do not enjoy Member benefits<BR>> ><BR>> > listed in the section above." Previous section (8.1.2) refers to Trustee<BR>> ><BR>> > benefits and again states "In addition to all Member benefits..." But in no<BR>> ><BR>> > prior (or later) section are there explicit Member benefits. Instead, a<BR>> ><BR>> > member is defined as: any entity that has completed the application forms,<BR>> ><BR>> > satisfied the objective membership criteria for the Organization, executed a<BR>> ><BR>> > copy of the Member Agreement, and paid the appropriate Membership Fee as<BR>> ><BR>> > established by the Board of Trustees. A Member may be an individual,<BR>> ><BR>> > corporation, partnership, join venture, trust, limited liability company,<BR>> ><BR>> > business association, governmental entity or other entity.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > There is a slide deck that is more explicit with regards to Member<BR>> ><BR>> > benefits. Consider the following changes:<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > OLD<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 8.1.1 Member<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > A Member is any entity that has completed the application forms, satisfied<BR>> ><BR>> > the objective membership criteria for the Organization, executed a copy of<BR>> ><BR>> > the Member Agreement, and paid the appropriate Membership Fee as established<BR>> ><BR>> > by the Board of Trustees. A Member may be an individual, corporation,<BR>> ><BR>> > partnership, join venture, trust, limited liability company, business<BR>> ><BR>> > association, governmental entity or other entity.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > NW (proposed)<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 8.1.1 Member<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > any entity that has completed the application forms, satisfied the objective<BR>> ><BR>> > membership criteria for the Organization, executed a copy of the Member<BR>> ><BR>> > Agreement, and paid the appropriate Membership Fee as established by the<BR>> ><BR>> > Board of Trustees. A Member may be an individual, corporation, partnership,<BR>> ><BR>> > join venture, trust, limited liability company, business association,<BR>> ><BR>> > governmental entity or other entity.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Member benefits include:<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > * Access to non-public/confidential drafts through the Kantara Initiative<BR>> ><BR>> > liaison agreements and relationships<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 1. I don't recall there being a confidentiality clause in<BR>> ><BR>> > the Kantara membership agreement that is the flow-through of our (Kantara's)<BR>> ><BR>> > obligation to third parties. We may consider adding a clause<BR>> ><BR>> > in the membership agreement to this effect.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > CW: I checked the By Laws, Ops and then accessed the BoT Sub Committee page<BR>> ><BR>> > which is not open to the public and concur that no confidentiality clauses<BR>> ><BR>> > exists there. It may have shown one on joining up though..<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > * Eligibility for positions on the Leadership Council<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 2. Is this true for members that are not Officers of an<BR>> ><BR>> > WG/DG?<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > CW: I think it is but the practicality is that Officers go forward. Agree<BR>> ><BR>> > that this needs tidying per your suggestion below.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > * Listing of Member Logo on web roster<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > * Ability to sponsor Work/Discussion Group formation<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > * Ability to request directed funding without overhead<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ----<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > By-Laws - defining "Stakeholders"<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Kantara has the concept of stakeholders, often referred to in presentations<BR>> ><BR>> > or discussions. It also came up when discussing the Subscriber class ("One<BR>> ><BR>> > idea floated was that for profile and criteria development stakeholders must<BR>> ><BR>> > be at least subscribers (== not non-funding participants)"). Stakeholder is<BR>> ><BR>> > not however defined in the By-Laws nor the Operating Procedures. We should<BR>> ><BR>> > either more clearly define this term OR stop using it. If we want to more<BR>> ><BR>> > clearly define it, one possible definition could be (and I hope someone can<BR>> ><BR>> > come up with something better) :<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > NEW<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > "Stakeholder"<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > A Stakeholder is an entity that is affected by the discussions and actions<BR>> ><BR>> > taken by the Kantara Initiative from the working group level through to the<BR>> ><BR>> > Board of Trustees. A Stakeholder may be impacted by one or more efforts,<BR>> ><BR>> > discussions, or recommendations produced out of the Kantara Initiative's<BR>> ><BR>> > Members and Participants. A Stakeholder may be an individual, corporation,<BR>> ><BR>> > partnership, join venture, trust, limited liability company, business<BR>> ><BR>> > association, governmental entity or other entity.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > CW: I don’t favour a new definition for Stakeholder. I think we can use it<BR>> ><BR>> > in presentations to indicate the active membership at large and imply the<BR>> ><BR>> > dictionary definition. I agree that “that for profile and criteria<BR>> ><BR>> > development stakeholders must be at least subscribers (== not non-funding<BR>> ><BR>> > participants)"<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ----<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Operating Procedures - WG and DG voting<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > The LC has explicit procedures for handling votes. All-member ballots also<BR>> ><BR>> > have explicit procedures. WG and DG don't, probably because it is expected<BR>> ><BR>> > those groups are to work on consensus as defined in the OP. However, those<BR>> ><BR>> > groups DO have to vote: for leadership positions, for decision making when<BR>> ><BR>> > consensus has failed. I suggest we basically copy section 2.6 in to the<BR>> ><BR>> > Working Group and Discussion Group sections, with the following<BR>> ><BR>> > modifications:<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 1 - change "LC to "WG" or "DG"<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 2 - IF the Subscriber class is approved by the BoT to have voting priv's in<BR>> ><BR>> > the WG/DG but NOT in the all-member ballots, we need to make that clear both<BR>> ><BR>> > in this new section as well as in the All-Member voting section.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > CW: Agree with all this<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ----<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Operating Procedures - Nominations<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Procedures for handling nominations to any leadership position are not laid<BR>> ><BR>> > out in the OP. Are there any categories of Members/Participants that are<BR>> ><BR>> > NOT allowed to be nominated in to a position? Should there be a minimum<BR>> ><BR>> > nomination period? Can anyone submit a nomination? Need to clarify these<BR>> ><BR>> > things.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 3. As per my comment 2 above.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > CW: Agree<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ----<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Operating Procedures - role of Secretary Would like to add to the summary<BR>> ><BR>> > report required of each WG Secretary a record of whether quorum was reached.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Might be useful to mention that a DG MAY nominate a Secretary, and if they<BR>> ><BR>> > do, the Secretary will have similar responsibilities to that of a WG<BR>> ><BR>> > Secretary. If they don't, then the DG Chair is required to fulfill those<BR>> ><BR>> > responsibilities.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 4. I’d like to suggest that the following text be considered with regards to<BR>> ><BR>> > voting. The changes I have suggested would be generally consistent with<BR>> ><BR>> > operating procedures in SDO’s; would give some notice to the delinquent<BR>> ><BR>> > Participant of the impending action; and would avoid any perception of the<BR>> ><BR>> > ability for members to “vote hop”. Even though we have not suffered from<BR>> ><BR>> > this at all, the perception of the ability to attain voting rights “at will”<BR>> ><BR>> > in light of an “interesting” agenda item, I believe would be better removed,<BR>> ><BR>> > and is more respectful of the active body of the membership.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 3.7<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > OLD<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > All Participants present at a WG meeting are voting members of the WG. For<BR>> ><BR>> > the purpose of maintaining a reasonable ability to achieve Quorum, any<BR>> ><BR>> > Participant in a WG who fails to attend two consecutive meetings of the WG<BR>> ><BR>> > may, at the discretion of the Chair, be re-classified as a non-voting<BR>> ><BR>> > member. Voting member status may be reacquired by attending a meeting of the<BR>> ><BR>> > WG. In the case of an electronic vote of the WG, if the electronic vote is<BR>> ><BR>> > initiated while a Participant is in non-voting status, the Participant may<BR>> ><BR>> > not vote in that electronic vote.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > PROPOSED<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > All Participants present at a WG meeting are voting members of the WG,<BR>> ><BR>> > unless they have elected to be non-voting Participants. For the purpose of<BR>> ><BR>> > ensuring an active membership base is maintained, any Participant in a WG<BR>> ><BR>> > who fails to attend two consecutive meetings of the WG may, at the<BR>> ><BR>> > discretion of the Chair, be re-classified as a non-voting member. Such<BR>> ><BR>> > re-classification shall be stated in the agenda of the meeting in which it<BR>> ><BR>> > takes affect. Voting member status may be re-acquired by attending a<BR>> ><BR>> > meeting of the WG, in which case the voting member status is effective at<BR>> ><BR>> > the conclusion of the meeting. In the case of an electronic vote of the<BR>> ><BR>> > WG, if the electronic vote is initiated while a Participant is in non-voting<BR>> ><BR>> > status, the Participant may not vote in that electronic vote.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > If adopted, this revised text would likely be similarly appropriate for<BR>> ><BR>> > clause 2.6 relating to the LC.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > CW: I sympathise with the intent. I’m worried that it will affect quorums<BR>> ><BR>> > which are already problematic. Still, I think it is worth doing for the<BR>> ><BR>> > reasons Colin S says and teh implication is that the draft Minutes will have<BR>> ><BR>> > to go to electronic vote more often. So the price for the change is a bit<BR>> ><BR>> > more work for the Secretaries.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ----<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Had enough yet? :-)<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > -Heather<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > LC mailing list<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > LC@kantarainitiative.org<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > LC mailing list<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > LC@kantarainitiative.org<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ====<BR>> ><BR>> > CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that<BR>> ><BR>> > may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the<BR>> ><BR>> > intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or<BR>> ><BR>> > attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message<BR>> ><BR>> > in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message<BR>> ><BR>> > and attachments. Thank you.<BR>> ><BR>> > ====<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> ><BR>> > LC mailing list<BR>> ><BR>> > LC@kantarainitiative.org<BR>> ><BR>> > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > LC mailing list<BR>> > LC@kantarainitiative.org<BR>> > http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc<BR>> ><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> LC mailing list<BR>> LC@kantarainitiative.org<BR>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc<BR></DIV> </div></body>
</html>