On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:23:31AM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> This is not true. The B&C constituency, upon which our language is
> modelled, does not.
Jeez, Milton, it would help if you paid attention. I quoted that very
BC language, and in *fact* it has no restriction based on membership in
another constituency. Their language very carefully dodges that bullet
by defining the character of the organizations excluded and not
mentioning membership in a constituency.
If our language was modeled on theirs, then our drafters did a lousy job
of following the model. And if you would have read just a bit more you
would have discovered that I proposed language that *was* modeled on the
BC language as a possible replacement that won't run foul of the ICANN
It would just be silly to use language that obviously contradicts those
bylaws, when you can get the same effect with other language that
doesn't contradict the bylaws.
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 05 2000 - 09:02:07 PDT