[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 21:22:48 +0100
- Organization: INEG. Inc. (Spokesman INEGroup)
- References: <LYR1799-4148-1999.07.26-23.39.18--Jwkckid1firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
Mark and all,
Mark Perkins wrote:
> > >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.
> I will have to reread the MOU but:
> >There is no concern/view/policy/stand
> >by any constituency that cannot be taken by another or disagreed to
> >by another either
> A) Clearly the commercial domain can take the same viewpoint as NCDNHC if
> they wish (& vice versa). My point is their involvement as observers in
> NCDNHC process.
Understood. My comments were indirectly related to observers in the
context in which Kathy eluded to and to the extent that they may be
members of other constituencies. Given that alone, it is inconceivable
and very short sited for another constituency, that may have them as
observers in that constituency, consider restricting their input as
a viable part of the process as an observer... Hence my original response.
> >that should preclude active participation of companies
> >that may have many different aspects to their structure, commercial,
> >non-commercial alike.
> B) active participation in what / where? ICANN or NCDNHC.
Both. But in the context of my comments here, the NCDNHC,
which after all is part of the ICANN is it not???
> My reading of
> NCDNHC was to preclude participation of even commercial non profits.
That is my understanding as well, yet we have seen in the past two days
two organization apply to which I commented on one FUNREDES just
today, the other which after I finnish some research, New York University
that don't seem to be noncommercial...
> If this
> is the case, then the question becomes whether observer status with speaking
> rights is participation. (see R.Gaetano@iaea.org message "The issue has been
> laso brought up directly in Berlin: there is the need to
> clearly distinguish between non-profit organizations whose charter is
> commercial (mostly professional or trade membership associations) and
> genuinely non-commercially-oriented organizations.
And I essentially agree with Roberto's concern. But actually this was
originally brought up by Michael Sondow early on in the process of
the questionable formation of the NCDNHC.
> There was consensus that
> the former should be excluded from this constituency.")
Oh really! and how can you verify that "Consensus". As our representatives
were there don't share your contention here...
> > 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...
> Sorry Jeff, but as you may see from above - this is my very point. Observers
> are observing something, whether ICANN, NCDNHC. (Stakeholder always reminds
> me of Tony Blair or Dracula..)
Well that may be your "Viewpoint", but unfortunately that is not the viewpoint
White Paper and the MoU. Hence I find this "Viewpoint" questionable
> >> In my experience there are 2 types of observer: speaking rights, non
> >> speaking rights. Even these can usually be silenced or excluded from
> >> 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.
> ? I am here referring to 2 types of observer, not 2 types of speech. Non
> speaking observers are very common, as is the possibility of the membership
> of a group (or it's parent body) to exclude non members (again, I will need
> to check the MOU).
One is necessarily related to the other as indicated in Kathy's original post
which prompted my original response. Observers should have the same
rights to speak to meet the openness requirements of the White Paper.
> 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
> 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