Re: [ncc-charter] charter amendment - non-voting members?

From: Adam Peake (
Date: Mon Sep 04 2000 - 21:16:05 PDT

  • Next message: Adam Peake: "Re: [ncc-charter] charter amendment - non-voting members?"

    >On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 12:05:25PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
    >> 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.
    >The vast majority of businesses are completely ineligible to vote in the
    >NCC. As far as general participation is concerned, the other
    >constituencies vary. The hated IPC constituency explicitly allows
    >participation by non-members, interestingly enough.
    >Moreover, the language in our charter:
    > 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.
    >is clearly foul of the ICANN bylaws quoted by Adam. In addition:
    >1) it is a restriction with very little application, effectively only
    >applying to registrars and registries, and they don't have much interest
    >in the NCC. Bill Semich (who has a long history of supporting
    >non-commercial activities in other areas, and who clearly has an
    >interest in the work of this constituency) is the only example where
    >this comes to mind.

    (for what it's worth) JPNIC were keen to join, KRNIC are certainly
    interested in non-commercial activities: sponsored a civil society forum in
    Seoul before the Yokohama meeting. Many of the AP region cc-tlds
    registries are active non-commercial organizations.

    >2) it is singularly ineffective. It is so very easy to create a
    >non-profit organization. I trust you have all had a chance to look at
    >"" :-), but it is essentially trivial to create a
    >non-profit organization. [It takes decidedly more work to become a
    >for-profit business.]

    Interesting that we suffer like no other constituency from likes of
    Baptista, Williams, Measday: an online performance artist, a multiple
    personality email address, and a nut. Yet we have managed to keep these
    people out with genuine reasons, so far. While it's easy to create a
    non-commercial organization, I don't believe we have seen any abuse of our
    membership, and we have been pretty honest in our reasons for denying
    membership. We're doing something right.



    >Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
    > lonesome." -- Mark Twain

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 21:19:14 PDT