I am thinking about direct action and ignoring indirect action. Indirect
action is too fuzzy (where is the boundary?) and subject to
interpretation. Exemplars would be direct theft of constituency property
or assetts, conversion, embesselment, hacking into the web-site, direct
actions taken to compromise the IDNO, violation of trust, etc.
As regards the conflict of interest, when Mike Roberts cast deciding
votes which turned out to be against the best interests of the IFWP. He
did this because he was already annointed as the CEO of what is now
ICANN and an IFWP consensus threatened that position. It would have
threatened the very creation of the ICANN. That, to me, is a very clear
case of conflict of interest. It is also a case of direct actions taken
against the best interest of the IFWP.
By this same token, by this same token, members who are also members of
other constituencies should not be in critical positions in the IDNO. I
could not, as a matter of course (and on reflection) ever take a seat on
the IDNO steering committee any more than Stef could (thanks for
lighting the path Stef), I would have to recuse myself much too often to
be able to do the job justice, due to such conflict of interests. Both
of us are involved in membership, however. I wouldn't have any problems
with advising the Steering Committee, however, as long as I don't have a
direct vote there.
I hope I was a little clearer than mud.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 1:44 AM
To: rmeyer@mhsc.com; idno@radix.co.nz
Subject: [IDNO:530] RE: Membership rules, again
At 23:21 20/06/1999 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
4.11. Loss of membership. Rules with regards to loss of membership will
be drawn up by an elected membership committee for approval by the
general membership . Such rules will assure a Fair Hearing of all
parties. Sole criterion for loss of membership should be "actively
hurting the constituency".
[RMJM] I'd like to re-phrase this, just a tad, to;
4.11. Loss of membership. Rules with regards to loss of membership will
be drawn up by an elected membership committee for approval by the
general membership . Such rules will assure a Fair Hearing of all
parties. Sole criterion for loss of membership should be direct action
against the best interests of the IDNO or blatant conflict of interest
with the charter of the IDNO.
Thanks Roeland. Yes, that looks better.
It will always be a matter of judgement what action against the best
interests of the IDNO is, (up to the Fair Hearing panel)
and conflict of interest with the charter (I would rather say: with
mission and purpose of the IDNO).
Could you come up with an extreme example?
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org
-- 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/