[ncc-charter] Re: charter - question and some suggested new text

From: Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)
Date: Tue Aug 15 2000 - 02:22:19 PDT

  • Next message: Adam Peake: "[ncc-charter] Re: charter - question and some suggested new text"

    >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
    >later step.

    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
    >kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 02:25:37 PDT