Re[8]: [ga] RE: [idno] Who said the IDNO welcome diversity?

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Roeland,

Wednesday, September 13, 2000, 1:05:59 AM, you wrote:

>> The question of a purported constituency taking unilateral action in
>> removal of members is certainly not strictly internal matter of the

> Charter provision are not the pervue of the ICANN. If it were then why
> not let the ICANN write all the charters? No, the directive is for those
> orgs to "self-organize". This directive clearly removes ICANN oversight
> from the candidate orgs charter creation. Even further, it is an ICANN
> function and not a DNSO one.

They most certainly are, if they purport to be a constituency.  The
NCDNHC was approved an initial constituency, but was sent back to make
changes to their charter before being admitted.

> As for the last point, an organization can select or deselect in any way
> they please. That is their right. While your arguments may apply to the
> AtLarge membership. I don't believe that they apply to the
> constituencies. Otherwise, why have constituencies (which is a question
> that I've been asking all along)? I haven't liked the constituency idea
> from the start. But, if that's the way they want to play the game ...

The constituencies are not organizations, Roeland.  Show me one that
is.  The IDNO is an outside organization, like the ISOC.  The ISOC is
NOT a constituency.  The IDNO is NOT a constituency.

An organization certainly can select or deselect as they please.  But
a constituency is NOT an organization.  It doesn't even resemble one.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html