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

From: Adam Peake (
Date: Mon Sep 04 2000 - 21:16:43 PDT

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


    >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.



    >> 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" <>.) 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
    > lonesome." -- Mark Twain

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 04 2000 - 21:19:52 PDT