[discuss] Re: [IDNO:506] RE: NCDNH

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roeland,

  Fart!  ROFLMAO!  Very apt there Roeland!  (See more below)

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@dso.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 12:46 AM
> >
> > On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 00:33:27 -0700, "Roeland M.J. Meyer"
> > <rmeyer@mhsc.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I think that what Jeff is getting at is that such bonafides are not
> > >available in all places. This precludes some serious non-commercial
> > >entities from joining their little party. If they make exception for
> > >them and not for me then there is a discrimination issue at
> > least as bad
> > >as Kent is complaining about here. This would tend to remove the wind
> > >from Kent (and CO) sails.
> >
> > But in any event, I wasn't saying their rules were just :)  just the
> > opposite. My point was that these are the current criteria that are
> > being used by the non-comm people.
> >
> > There is no doubt the definition is flawed, the question is though
> > where the line should be drawn.  It has to be drawn somewhere.
>
> That was exactly my point, but where? An ill-wind (fart, I think) blew
> through here, but it left some interesting information. It might even be
> true, although I doubt that it's complete.

  I doubt it is complete as well.  But that is really not the more serious
point.
The more serious point is that there is not documentation on the ISOC site
(That I can find anyway) regarding the NCDNHC mailing list requirements
or the NCDNHC constituency( ISOC version) that I can find anywhere
either.  Is there a web site for the NCDNHC somewhere?  I have yet to
find one.  It is possible that it is one of those Domains registered at
Register.com that are not resolving...


>
>
>   "Membership is limited to organizations that are not also members of
>   other DNSO constituencies.  We recognize that some organizations
>   that are non-profit and engage in non-commercial activities may be
>   eligible for other DNSO constituencies, but in order to focus the
>   efforts of the NCDNHC, such organizations are eligible for the
>   NCDNHC only if they elect not to join other constituencies. "

  This is as I understand it in violation of the agreements taken in Berlin
and the very statements the Esther Dyson made concerning Constituency's.

>
>
> I believe that one of the tenets, of DNSO constituencies was the that
> entities could belong to more than one and that constituencies were to
> be fluid, graceful, and flexible creatures. These are the very things
> that the NCDNHC is not (which, of course, fits the personalities of some
> of their members, crass, crude, and ugly). Do we want to emulate them?

  If I were a member of the IDNO I would not want to emulate what the
NCDNHC (ISOC version) is doing.

>
> The other point is that the K*nt DEMANDED entry into this constituency,
> yet it is a member of an exclusive club on its own. Did everybody miss
> that point?

  I gathered that this was the point...

>
>
> One question is a quid pro quo requirement. How would we construct one?
> Could such a requirement be valid?

  I think not.

>
>
> --
> This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send
> a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz.
> For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208