At 09:01 AM 9/5/2000 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>Jeez, Milton, it would help if you paid attention. I quoted that very
>BC language,
Two or three messages later after making the assertion....yes.
>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.
There is a distinction. It may be that the organization (e.g., Semich's
purported user's foundation) does have a specific character that would
qualify for NCC membership, but if it also chooses to join and vote in
ccTLD or registrar constituency, it should not be eligible for NCC. It has
to make a choice as to where its primary interests lie.
I do not accept your rewording. Unless we institute fees, I see no reason
why organizations that are not eligible for full membership should be able
to come into our physical meetings and participate fully. No other
organization even lets you in the door unless you are a member.
>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.
That language has been in there from the beginning. ICANN recognized the
constituency with it in there.
I strongly suggest that we set aside this issue and get on with the
election. This will cause a huge fight and delay progress. I think the best
place to pursue this issue is in the DNSO review. I think we should
question the ICANN DNSO bylaw that imposes the restriction, not modify our
charter.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 05 2000 - 09:34:50 PDT