Kent,
>If we must include this basically useless provision, I suggest we use
>that language, slightly amended, as follows:
>
The following is fine by me (except additional "of")
> The NCDNHC will have two types of membership, voting members and
> non-voting members.
>
> Associations or organizations whose specific goals are to represent
> {of} the interests of registries, registrars or ISPs or those whose
> specific interests are to defend the Intellectual Property rights of
> their associates cannot have full member status but may participate
> as non-voting members.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
Thanks,
Adam
>>
>> Old text:
>>
>> *The NCDNHC will have two types of membership, voting members and
>> *non-voting members.
>> *
>> *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
>> *non-voting members.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >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.
>>
>>
>
>--
>Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
>kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 21:19:52 PDT