Milton, thank you.
So I propose the following:
II. Membership Criteria
The NCDNHC will have two types of membership, voting members and
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 voting membership in the NCDNHC
only if they are not voting members in any other DNSO Constituency.
[Sentence moved below and changed]
We understand that many subgroups have separate interests and a
separate voice from their parent organizations. Those subgroups are
welcome to participate fully and actively in the Constituency as
Non-voting members can participate in Constituency discussion lists,
propose and discuss resolutions and participate in all physical meetings.
Non-voting members cannot vote in the election of Constituency
representatives, cannot vote on resolutions and should not participate in
constituency Adcom teleconference calls.
*The NCDNHC will have two types of membership, voting members and
*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 voting membership in the NCDNHC
*only if they are not voting members in any other DNSO Constituency.
*Non-voting members can participate in the discussion list, submit
*proposals to the Constituency and participate in all open
*teleconference calls and physical meetings.
*We understand that many subgroups have separate interests and a
*separate voice from their parent organizations. Those subgroups are
*welcome to participate fully and actively in the Constituency as
>At 08:45 PM 9/1/2000 +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
>>I don't understand what you're saying here.
>>We've always had a class of non-voting members, they have always had
>>certain rights (though not very well defined rights) within the
>>constituency. You think they should be ineligible for membership, period?
>If this class is carefully restricted to the two cases you mention below --
>organizations that would otherwise be eligible except for the membership of
>a parent organization and organizations that are voting members of other
>DNSO constituencies -- then it's ok to call them "non-voting members" and
>it's ok to let them propose and discuss resolutions in f2f meetings and the
>list. I am willing to give on this. But they still shouldn't vote.
>>OK, not participate in Adcom teleconference calls.
>>So will you accept: non-voting members may propose and vote on resolutions
>>and discuss and propose amendments to resolutions during face to face
>>meetings and on the mailing list?
>See above. Yes to discussing and proposing, no to voting.
>>Note. We created this non-voting class of members for organizations that
>>are voting members of other constituencies (usually CC-TLD operators) and
>>subgroups of organizations that are already members of the constituency
>>(ISOC chapters.) They are organizations that would qualify for membership
>>if it weren't for these conflicts.
>The point of these membership restrictions was to protect the integrity of
>the NCC. I am concerend about actual membership being swamped with casual
>and stacked participants from other constituencies. Note that the vast
>majority of NCC organizations are completely ineligible to vote or even
>participate in the affairs of other constituencies.
>>I agree that they should be non-voting in the election of our Adcom
>>representatives, but for the work of the constituency I think this class of
>>members should be able to participate as fully as possible (Milton, I am
>>willing to give on them not participating in teleconference calls.)
>>As I mentioned yesterday, our decision may have implications for
>>organizations applying for the travel grant and for the grant itself
>>(applicants must be "a member of the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders
>>Constituency" <http://ICANN.salzburgseminar.org/guidelines.htm>.) And we
>>should be careful not to fall foul of Section 3a of ICANN bylaws,
>ISOC chapters, for example, can claim that ISOC is a member of the NCC and
>as such the individual applicant would be considered a member of NCC. Same
>goes for University departments, etc. Most TLD registries don't need
>financial support to attend ICANN meetings.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 04:22:52 PDT