On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > The heart of the matter here is that our friend Jim wants to have one
***
> > > organisation (Euro-ISPA) sign up, claim that he speaks for 500 ISPs,
************************
> > > and therefore have vested in one single person 500 votes.
> > > From there he said, ok, then I get all 500 to sign, all of them name
> > > a rep (the same one, so I presume he means himself, but the person
> > > doesn't really matter), and then I get 500 votes.
> >
> > I know that it's difficult to stay on the straight and narrow, but
> > I said no such thing.
At no point did I suggest that EuroISPA would sign the gTLD MOU. See what
you quote below.
> > Repeating myself once again, what I did propose
> > was that EuroISPA might urge its members to sign the gTLD MOU if
> >
> > [1] each organization could appoint whoever they wish as representative
> > and
> > [2] each such designated representative have a vote for each signatory
> > appointing him or her as representative
There is a certain ambiguity in this which perhaps you don't notice.
EuroISPA has nine members, each an association of Internet-related
organizations.
> Actually, that is not what you proposed.
>
> Your original proposal was that a blanket organization such as
> EuroISPA be able to sign the MoU, and receive votes commensurate with
> the entities it represented. One signature, many votes. Presumably
> after a short time you realized the absurdity of such a position
> (which *is* consistent with EuroISPA signing and getting 500 votes --
> it all depends on what definition you use for "represent"), and
> changed it to the above.
Read the actual language used, according to you:
> >From your original email to POC and EuroISPA, forwarded to me by POC:
>
> >We would prefer that our member associations be allowed to be able to sign
************************
> >on behalf of their members, possibly with a list of those members who
> >choose not to sign. This would allow ISPA UK, for example, to sign on
> >behalf of its 83 or so members and appoint one spokesman who would be
> >explicitly recognised as the representative of that many signatories.
There is no suggestion that EuroISPA should sign the gTLD MOU.
If you really want to go through the necessary tedious analysis, checking
where I said "members" and "our members' members" and where I said "we
would prefer" and "our proposal is" etc you will find that we have
been proposing much the same thing all along, refining the language
as we go along.
If you look at the signature block at the bottom of the gTLD MOU, you
will find that a person signs on behalf of the "entity", the signatory.
If the Chief Executive of ISPA UK, for example, were appropriately
empowered by a number of ISPA UK members, he could sign the gTLD MOU on
behalf of each. Under UK law as I understand it, ISPA itself could be
so empowered, and would be the "person" signing the gTLD MOU, although
the human being signing would in that case again be the Chief Executive.
If you look more carefully at what I wrote to the PAB, you will find
that
* at no time did I suggest that EuroISPA would sign the gTLD MOU
* neither did I suggest that ISPA UK or any other EuroISPA
member would become a signatory
I did say that we would prefer that our member associations sign ON
BEHALF OF their members, in which case our members' members would be
the actual signatories.
If this is incomprehensible, run it by a lawyer.
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:24 PST