RE: [council] RE: [nc-budget] Motion: Alternative Solutionsto lower the expenses of DNSO

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

Then you made a statement without any direct knowledge. That is what I wanted you to admit. 

And FYI again, the "recent" activity (which began in January) was self-generated and has no relationship to the Budget Committee ultimatum.

>>> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> 04/23/01 03:48PM >>>

I used the word "appears" because I obviously do not know all that is going
on except that recently there does seem to be some activity to resolve past
problems.

I still believe that it is reasonable for the NC to implement a plan that
results in loss of voting rights for constituencies who do not pay their
share, after appropriate warning periods.  But that is an NC decision, not
mine.  And that applies to all constituencies, not just the NCDNHC.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] 
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:33 PM
To: nc-budget@dnso.org; vany@sdnp.org.pa; cgomes@verisign.com 
Cc: council@dnso.org 
Subject: [council] RE: [nc-budget] Motion: Alternative Solutions to
lower the expenses of DNSO


Chuck and others:

This is something I have to make clear. The current crop of NCDNHC Adcom
members was elected on the promise to do something about raising money. I
personally ran on a platform of compulsory membership fees. My first action
upon election was to get an organization to agree to retire the 1999 debt.
This all occurred months BEFORE any of us were aware of the NC budget
committee report. 

In short, your impression that fundraising activity by NCDNHC is a product
of your ultimata and threats is completely wrong. Quite the contrary. Time
that could have been spent on this problem has been spent dealing with the
issue of linking voting rights to dues. 

And in fact, since you are obviously unware of what has been going on in our
constituency I'd appreciate a swift retraction of your false statement.

--MM

>>> "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> 04/23/01 09:25AM >>>
With no consequences, little or no
action was taken by the NCDNC.  With the pending possibility of
consequences, there appears to be some activity on the part of the NCDNC.