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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 2:53 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf