An organization for funding and making decisions. A staff to support the needs of the organization. The methodology, including all tools, to make staff support possible. The Organization, we need a fee-based organization. It needs regular income. Base it on an annual subscription fee. Make it affordable to all.
Business Proposal Template - rocket Lawyer
Through doing what ibm does in a fixpack: replace old modules with updated ones. We have as much right to replace modules as does ibm. A gradual replacement process over a two- to three-year period could see the complete replacement of all ibm closed source code. If we were going to sell this replacement, we would have to give essay it a different name. That ibm gets to keep. So we call ours Warpicity. Any new user who wants to join in the interim simply has to purchase a licensed copy of OS/2. How do we enhance its capabilities? In the same manner that we provide replacement modules. That's what. What do we need to do it?
As such it deals with three aspects of it: (1) an organization, (2) its staffing, and (3) the methodology for the staff to use. Thus the use of the term systemic. It does not address a part, as do most other proposals, but the whole with each aspect supporting the needs of the others. Unabashedly it runs rampant over establish paradigms in all three aspects. So how do we protect users' os/2 investment? Through the users funding year their own support. How do we wrest control from ibm?
In the may issue of voice louis muollo wrote an article in which he described a means of users pooling their financial resources to fund known and experienced talent to write selected device drivers. As this overlapped in part resumes the warpicity Proposal someone contacted louis who contacted me and then contacted voice to ask me to participate in an irc session. Voice, namely mark dodel did, and i agreed. I also agreed to write this article so that participants would have both reference material and time to come up with in depth questions. Somewhere in all this I was given a section 20 Warpicity Project in OS2cforum on CompuServe which is now underway. There i and my collaborators attempt to do on a daily basis what sometime in July we will do in an irc session. The warpicity Proposal offers a systemic solution protecting users' os/2 investment, wresting control of OS/2's future away from any dependency on ibm, and enhancing its capability in terms of features, functions, device drivers, and applications. It is a proposal that deals strictly with software, its development, maintenance, and support.
Because your board believes that senior executive compensation is already closely linked to business performance, and therefore to the long-term interests of the share owners, your board believes this proposal is unnecessary and recommends a vote against the proposal. Voice newsletter - os/2 feature page. June 1999, by lynn. Maxson, a brief History. At WarpStock98 I presented the warpicity Proposal. That proposal came as a result of a frequent and often intense exchange of CompuServe responses between John soo hoo and myself and with other brave enough at times to chime. Somewhere towards the end of this exchange Stanley sidlov, the warpStock98 program chairman, suggested that we had an interesting topic that we should present. History will probably show him the wiser.
7 Steps to a winning Business Proposal - entrepreneur
According to a recent study by Credit suisse first Boston (csfb this is the second largest amount reported of all companies in the s p 500. This pension income amounted.4 of ge's reported pre-tax income for the year. "While the impact of earnings calculations may vary, ge's top five executives were given cash bonus awards.7 million business in 2000. They were given restricted stock units worth 89 million. They were given long-term incentive awards contingent on financial performance over a three year period, and were paid 58 million pursuant to the contingent awards that were made in 1997. In addition, they were given options with a potentially realizable value of 422 million if future earnings permit ge stock to appreciate at an annual rate of 10 percent over the option term.
"Executive compensation ought to be based on performance. It should not be distorted by 'pension income because that item of income does not represent money the company has actually received, and does not reflect the operational performance of either the company or its executives. "As Business week reported on August 13, 2001, when companies 'are inflating earnings with income from pension plan assets, their reported results look better than what's really happening with their business.' for this reason, a morgan Stanley dean Witter report declares that 'net gains from. "csfb identifies several companies that 'increased their expected rates of return on plan assets in 2000 even though their actual returns on plan assets declined.' While such increases may well be an appropriate exercise of discretion, the proposed policy would reduce any temptation that senior. Your board of Directors recommends a vote against this proposal. This proposal requests the board to make future executive compensation determinations without regard to reported pension fund income, purportedly to link more closely executive compensation to business performance. As discussed in the compensation Committee report at pages 16-19 (Compensation Committee report), executive compensation is already closely linked to the performance of internal business units and to the appreciation of ge stock - which in turn is linked to ge's overall business performance.
Comment paragraphs 7 and 8 are confusing and in some regard appear to be contradictory not only to each other but also to the aso mou. These paragraphs must be redrafted. Throughout the review Procedure, from policy proposal to the outcome of the review, icann will maintain on the website, a status web page detailing the progress. This web page shall describe the initial proposal for a policy, all discussions and comments submitted in the process, all reports and recommendations produced on the matter and the outcome of the review. Comment in light of the above comments it is unclear what reports would be generated as part of this process other than the fiduciary and legal impact analyses performed by the icann staff. . However in the interests of openness and transparency it is most appropriate, if not required, for the icann staff to post any pertinent reports it either receives or generates with regard to policy that is under review.
Axel Pawlik chair, nro. Share Owner Proposal. 6, the communications Workers of America pension Fund, 501 Third Street,. Has notified ge that it intends to submit the following proposal at this year's meeting: "Resolved that the stockholders request that the board of Directors take the steps necessary to adopt a policy that future executive compensation will be determined without regard to any pension. "Supporting Statement: Accounting rules require the company to include gains on the assets in its pension fund in calculations of income, even though no money is transferred to the company. This distorts the principle of pay for performance because the company relies on net earnings and earnings growth in determining the compensation of executives. "GE reported.7 billion in pension income in 2000.
What is a proposal?
If the author of those comments wishes to have them addressed again, then the icann public comment period is the appropriate venue for those parties to raise these issues again. It would then be appropriate for the icann staff as part of their analysis of the comments from the icann comment period to examine not analyze previous comments to determine what else had been said previously regarding the matter. In the end the staff recommendation should not be an argument of the merits of the policy but rather an exposition long of the arguments made so that the board can make an informed decision regarding the policy. The board takes its decision on the proposal and informs the aso address council thereof, in line with the mou provisions in Attachment a, articles 9-11. Relevant mou provisions in Attachment a, articles 10-15, apply, should the board request changes to the proposal or reject. See comments after paragraph. As part of the decision of the board, the board shall, as appropriate, give authorization or direction to the icann staff to take all necessary steps to implement the policy. Should the board fail to take action as defined by the mou provisions in Attachment a, article 10, within the 60-day window, the policy is deemed to be accepted by the board and it becomes global policy.
However, this would seem to be a normal part of the review process and probably doesnt have to be included in this document. These questions are appropriate as long as they are of an objective nature and not regarding merit or argumentative. This questioning process can not be a source of delay in the review process. Icann staff analyzes comments received following step 2, as well as prior comments put forward during the aso pdp, and compiles within 10 business days from the end of the comment period a staff Recommendation which is forwarded to the board for consideration. The Staff Recommendation shall contain reasoned opinions on all material issues write and motivations for proposed decisions. Comment the analysis or evaluation of the comments made prior to the proposal being submitted to the icann board for action is not appropriate. These comments were addressed during the various rir policy fora.
with comments due within 21 days from posting. All icann supporting Organizations and Advisory committees shall be immediately notified of the posting and their comments invited as appropriate. Comment the start date for the 5 business day clock is not defined. The term immediately is ambiguous at best. We suggest changing it to within one (1) business day with the same start point as the 5 business day clock. During all the steps 1-4 above, icann staff so assigned, may ask the aso address council for clarifications of the proposal, as appropriate. Such questions for clarifications shall be reasonable, concise and bundled. The aso address council shall respond to such questions within 10 business days. Comment given that the icann staff attends all rir and aso ac meetings, this seems to be a rather superfluous step as any questions of clarification that the staff has at this time should have surely been raised and answered in the months leading.
If there items missing from the mou london with regard to this then icann should open a dialogue with the nro about those items *. The board, acting through the President, assigns the activities foreseen in the mou, attachment a, article 8, (stating that The icann board may review the policy proposal and may ask questions and otherwise consult with the aso address council and/or the rirs acting collectively through. The icann board may also consult with other parties as the board considers appropriate.) to icann staff. Comment on the surface this appears to remove the icann board from the policy process and directly involves the icann staff in the policy process. However if the intent of the assignment is for staff to execute the consultation process for the board then this is acceptable. It should be clear that as a result of this assignment that staff is not a part of the policy process, but is a facilitator. If deemed appropriate by icann staff so assigned in line with 2 above, external consultancy assistance may be called upon to assist in the review process. Comment external consultancy assistance implies the incorporation of a non-icann body into the policy process. Engaging external consultancy assistance is not the same as performing consultation and therefore cannot be a part of the process.
39 Business Proposal Templates - business Templates
Nro comments submitted to icann regarding Policy Proposal review Procedure. The number Resource Organization submitted to icann the following comments to the. Proposed review Procedure for aso policy Proposals. The aso address council sends the proposed policy to the icann board Secretary who formally legs shall acknowledge receipt of the proposal within one business day. In case the proposal is formally incomplete, the board Secretary may refer it back to the aso address council for completion, otherwise the 60-day window for board response to the aso address council starts and the review procedure outlined hereafter commences. Comment this refers to an undefined state for a policy proposal, ie, that a policy proposal could be formally incomplete. It presupposes that there is some sort of characteristics for a formally complete proposal which is not specified here. Policy proposals are vetted through all of the rir policy fora and are not editable by the aso. Policy proposals submitted through the aso ac to the icann board are considered by their nature to be complete.