>On Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 10:47:14PM +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
>> A question about the charter and a suggested addition re. membership of
>> political parties.
>Bear in mind that we have to have a vote on the charter, then submit it
>to ICANN for approval, and that should happen soon. While the
>temptation to make substantial changes is great, we need to be very
>careful about going down a road that might open extended debate. I
>suggest, therefore, that we concentrate on the matter of alternates,
>get a version of the charter out to the constituency that deals with
>that issue, try to get it approved, and continue with further mods as a
Kent. Understand and agree, but we have 2 political parties with their
membership pending. Which I why I raised this matter in the first place
(and should have said so at that time...)
I think we should look to adding some words to address political parties
before the election. See my reply to Milton.
>In regards to alternates:
>It is unambiguous and clear that neither the NC nor ICANN is going to
>permit alternates -- see
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00066.html, and the
>preceeding and following discussion.
>In fact, it is so clear that I am not sure that the version of the text
>that I proposed is adequate to deal with the issue. Andrew's review of
>the associated language in the ICANN bylaws is pretty stark.
>Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
>email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 02:25:37 PDT