[IDNO:506] RE: NCDNH

Roeland M.J. Meyer (rmeyer@mhsc.com)
Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:45:27 -0700


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@dso.net]
> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 12:46 AM
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 00:33:27 -0700, "Roeland M.J. Meyer"
> <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:
>
> >I think that what Jeff is getting at is that such bonafides are not
> >available in all places. This precludes some serious non-commercial
> >entities from joining their little party. If they make exception for
> >them and not for me then there is a discrimination issue at
> least as bad
> >as Kent is complaining about here. This would tend to remove the wind
> >from Kent (and CO) sails.
>
> But in any event, I wasn't saying their rules were just :) just the
> opposite. My point was that these are the current criteria that are
> being used by the non-comm people.
>
> There is no doubt the definition is flawed, the question is though
> where the line should be drawn. It has to be drawn somewhere.

That was exactly my point, but where? An ill-wind (fart, I think) blew
through here, but it left some interesting information. It might even be
true, although I doubt that it's complete.

"Membership is limited to organizations that are not also members of
other DNSO constituencies. We recognize that some organizations
that are non-profit and engage in non-commercial activities may be
eligible for other DNSO constituencies, but in order to focus the
efforts of the NCDNHC, such organizations are eligible for the
NCDNHC only if they elect not to join other constituencies. "

I believe that one of the tenets, of DNSO constituencies was the that
entities could belong to more than one and that constituencies were to
be fluid, graceful, and flexible creatures. These are the very things
that the NCDNHC is not (which, of course, fits the personalities of some
of their members, crass, crude, and ugly). Do we want to emulate them?
The other point is that the K*nt DEMANDED entry into this constituency,
yet it is a member of an exclusive club on its own. Did everybody miss
that point?

One question is a quid pro quo requirement. How would we construct one?
Could such a requirement be valid?

-- 
This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send
a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz.
For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/