[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Updated "Enrolled Organizations List" of NCDNHC from 7.1. to 7.31.
- To: "J. William Semich (NIC JWS7)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, DNSO GA <email@example.com>, ICANN Comments <Comments@icann.org>
- Subject: Re: The Updated "Enrolled Organizations List" of NCDNHC from 7.1. to 7.31.
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 15:31:28 +0100
- CC: Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency Discussion List <email@example.com>
- Organization: INEG. Inc. (Spokesman INEGroup)
- References: <LYR1728-4723-1999.08.03-14.07.52--APisan#SERVIDOR.UNAM.MX@lyris.isoc.org> <LYR1799-4783-1999.08.04-12.02.41--Jwkckid1firstname.lastname@example.org>
Bill and all,
Your points are well taken here bill, as they should be. Pisanty's
comments also fail to deal directly with the issue of NON-PROFIT
entities that are not NON-COMMERCIAL as well, this would include
some universities as well as some ccTLD's.
J. William Semich (NIC JWS7) wrote:
> At 09:07 PM 8/3/99 -0600, you wrote:
> Dr. Pisantry said:
> >Organizations of these types and others, which run ccTLDs too. Separate
> >representatives for NCDNHC and ccTLD constituencies, disclose possible
> >conflict of interest and that's it. COI arguments wait for specific
> >discussions or votes later on but if the organization is noncom it is in.
> >What do you all think? Can we go on from here?
> I like your approach, but it does not appear to me that it deals with issue
> of excluding participants who also belong to other constituencies.
> Here is what I posted to this list several days ago:
> Some time ago, I raised a problem with the NCDNHC proposed bylaws. The
> problem is the bylaws' proviso that membership in the Noncommercial Domain
> Name Holder's constituency of the DNSO should not be open to an
> organization or entity which is also a member of any other DNSO Constituency.
> I pointed out that such a proviso violates the ICANN Bylaws which
> *specifically* precluded this kind of provision - a provision of the bylaws
> explicitly states that membership in more than one constituency is allowed,
> even encouraged:
> 'Section 3: THE CONSTITUENCIES
> (a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own
> criteria for participation, except that no individual or entity shall be
> excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of
> participation in another Constituency..."
> I'd say this is pretty explicit, at least.'
> If we agree to your approach, would it mean that this concern of mine is no
> longer a problem?
> Bill Semich
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208