RE: [ga] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?
At 22:22 12/09/00 -0700, Roeland wrote:
>I disagree, in the face of determined disruption, the organization must
>protect its own right to maintain order and decorum from those that
>would paralyze the organization with chaotic and disruptive behaviour.
>Animals need not be catered to. One behaves in civilized fashion or one
>gets thrown out on their ear. This very GA list also practices that same
>principle and for the same reason.
Roeland is right. Ironically , WXW was the staunchest supporter of such
suspensions here in the GA.
He is not even suspended from the idno-discuss list, but clearly he's not
an idno member any more.
An organization in the bootstrap stage is too vulnerable to allow such
Mr Walsh has put himself outside what the IDNO stands for a long time ago,
ever since he declared it dead on all other lists including this one.
The last time, when he posted to this list :
>The IDNO should not be added. It is not a constituency, and as it
>stands it should not be eligible to be a constituency.
>No "organization" should have constituency status bestowed on it.
>That is not what a constituency is or how a constituency should be
he directly negated our ratified purpose and mission statement.
1.1 Purpose: to provide representation in the Domain name Supporting
Organization (DNSO) for all individual Domain Name Owners. We represent the
concerns of individuals who own domain names, rather than organizations.
These concerns include the wish to remain free from being classified as
commercial or non-commercial.
1.2. Mission: to ensure that Individual Domain Name Owners , as
stakeholders in the Domain Name System (DNS), will have a say in all new
ICANN rulemaking that will affect their financial interest, on-line freedom
or security of existence.
2.2. The Individual Domain Name Owners Constituency is requesting the ICANN
board to approve it's membership of the DNSO in accordance with the
provisions of the ICANN Bylaws and with the US government's White Paper and
allow it to contribute 3 elected representatives from among its members to
the Names Council of the DNSO.
I he had any decency, he would have left on his own accord instead of
staying around to sabotage and discredit the organization.
art 4.11 is an emergency measure by which a constituency (or any on-line
organization) made up of individuals can protect itself against loose
A single individual has a lot of rights and power in the IDNO.
Consequently, the majority must have the rights and power to remove a
4.11 is worth reading in full. www.idno.org/organiz.htm
Don't rely on a "summary".
Sorry to all for prolonging this thread on the GA list.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html