[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] Re: Coments about proposal of modifications/additions to origin al drafts
- To: Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency Discussion List <email@example.com>, DNSO GA <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [ga] Re: Coments about proposal of modifications/additions to origin al drafts
- From: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 18:24:29 +0100
- Organization: INEG. Inc. (Spokesman INEGroup)
- References: <LYR1799-4143-1999.07.26-21.02.39--Jwkckid1firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
Mark and all,
Mark Perkins wrote:
> I disagree with Jeff.
> The reason that for constituencies is to ensure that differing interest
> groups come up with their own views / stands / policies.
Good point but fails under the requirements of the White Paper and the
NTIA/ICANN MoU, unfortunately. There is no concern/view/policy/stand
by any constituency that cannot be taken by another or disagreed to
by another either that should preclude active participation of companies
that may have many different aspects to their structure, commercial,
non-commercial alike. INEGroup, for instance is one such organization
for instance. Hence Kathy's contention is invalid on that point as well,
as is you response in part, here Mark...
> Thus it is very
> important to distinguish "stakeholders" from differing constituencies. IE.
> surely we do not want a situation where a minority of NCDNH members are
> drowned out by commercial constituency observers (even if the latter
> mascarade under non-commercial faces).
My original response and the use of the term "Stakeholders" in generic
in nature and not necessarily directly related to a constituency...
> In my experience there are 2 types of observer: speaking rights, non
> speaking rights. Even these can usually be silenced or excluded from certain
> discussions or have their rights revoked for disruptive behaviour.
Under the requirements of the White Paper and the MoU there are to
be NO distinguishing of "Types" of speaking. Hence I find this comment
as related to my original response wholly inappropriate and not relevant.
> The above does not necessarily represent the views of my employer (nor
> do my employers views necessarily represent mine).
I am sure they don't! >;)
> Mark Perkins
> Librarian (acting)
> Secretariat of the Pacific Community Library
> BP D5, 98848 Noumea Cedex
> New Caledonia, South Pacific
> Tel: 00 687 262000 Fax: 00 687 263818
> email: firstname.lastname@example.org / web: http://www.spc.org.nc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 27 July 1999 02:36
> To: Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency Discussion List
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Coments about proposal of modifications/additions to origin
> al drafts
> kathy and all,
> KathrynKL@aol.com wrote:
> > Roberto wrote:
> > > What about the other pending point, i.e. whether we accept
> "observership" in
> > > the constituency? It seemed to me that we had sufficient consensus
> > it.
> > >
> > I certainly think that the following groups fall within the "members
> > voting status," with full participation in discussion:
> > - chapters or other subgroups where the parent organization has joined
> > - chapters or other subgroups where another chapter or subgroup has been
> > chosen as the voting representative for the entire group (assuming the
> > did not choose to join)
> This if course is practically useless...
> > But organizations that are part of another constituency and want to
> > in the NCDNHC? I see problems with this -- mostly from the perspective
> > a participant from another constituency could be very influential in
> > an issue that we are discussing and trying to form a decision on. Coming
> > from outside, with another constituency's points and persuasive
> > might really sway our own discussions.
> Again this is the basic nature of constituencies in general, and as such
> I fail to see this a potential problem. In fact the contrary, it is one of
> advantages of a constituency model.
> > Let me ask: Are other constituencies allowing observers?
> Yes the IDNO is... And rightfully so, as it should be.
> > How involved are
> > the "observers" allowed to be in the constituency's discussion? Is there
> > way to distinguish comments of the constituency members from those of the
> > observers?
> Why should there be? As a member of the stakeholder community
> and in accordance with the White Paper and the MoU this is a
> basic requirement. Not distinction need be made as long a they
> are stakeholders.
> > Thanks,
> > Kathy Kleiman
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> 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.
> E-Mail email@example.com
> Contact Number: 972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> 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