ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Re: Ballot

At 15:18 19/05/01 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>bruce
>
>maybe i am wrong here, but i believe that the board requires a set of
>by-laws from the proposing constituancy...
>

Yes, Ken, I think you are wrong here.
The only resolution that the Board made (in 1999 in Berlin) was a resolution not to address the petition at that time.
This resolution was not given to the press at that time, but L.Touton revealed it when asked.
Ask him for the exact text.

This way, the Board did not have to come up with a reasoned rejection.

The Charter of the idno was not complete at that time (just like the Charter of the NCDNHC) and the Board was asked to decide in principle on the petition with a charter for an IDNO constituency in an abreviated form.
see www.idno.org/petition.htm 
The Board *did* on that occasion approve the NCDNHC "in principle",  but did not recognize it as a constituency until Santiago.





--Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>