Re: [ga] Re: Explicit Rulings or Vague Mandates ?

["watchdog" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

It is fact. If you knew how the laws are in regards to nonprofits were then
you would know that once it is written in the bylaws that the public or
membership of some organization is to be included in any way that the rules
change. That is why most nonprofits have no such clauses in their bylaws.
ICANN does.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "William X Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
To: "watchdog" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
Cc: "Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Explicit Rulings or Vague Mandates ?


> Wednesday, Wednesday, August 22, 2001, 4:25:17 PM, watchdog wrote:
>
> > Yes, but a very valid point most seem to miss is that The Names Council
> > serves the GA not the other way around. Whenever a nonprofit is to
include
>
> No, that is not true.  The Names Council has no obligation to the GA
> in that regard.
>
> Whether it should or not is a different story, but let's keep our
> facts straight.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>

--
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