On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 10:42:29AM -0400, James Love wrote:
> Hey Kent. If you actually worked for a noncommercial organization, you
> might understand how much it pisses some people off when the NCDNHC
> becomes just another vehicle for business interests to have yet another
> vote in ICANN.
Hey Jamie, in fact my employer is the University of California -- a
non-commercial organization.
Perhaps what you mean is that if I was employed as a professional
full-time political activist, I would understand?
Well, quite possibly. All dedicated professionals end up with a world
view colored by their profession. Perhaps you would agree that your
career as a full-time professional political activist has had some
effect on your view of the world?
However, that view may not be appropriate for the NCC. There are lots
and lots of non-commercial organizations that don't have activism as
their primary focus, and there is in fact no reason to assume that
"non-commercial" is the same as "anti-commercial".
It appears that you would like a litmus test that could be applied that
would eliminate members that didn't agree with you, but that really
can't be done. If an organization qualifies to be a member of the NCC,
I don't see any reason to be particularly concerned about who they chose
for their rep. More important, there isn't any mechanism available to
discriminate. Imagine a Bill Gates Charitable Trust -- if it qualified
as a NCC member (and it probably would), we could imagine that it
would be rather favorable to commercial interests. There really isn't
anything that can be done about that -- "open processes" is a sword
that cuts both ways.
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain--- You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Kent@SONGBIRD.COM To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1729M@lyris.isoc.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 13:20:39 PDT