Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules

[Dnsipv6@aol.com]

Kent and everybody else,

  To believe your assertion, the Election held on Oct 8th with the rules
stating that to vote you must be a member of the DNSO GA list or the 
DNSO announce list to vote were only everyone's imagination?  Do
you Kent expect anyone to believe that?

David "Dude" Jenson
INEGRoup-East Director

In a message dated 1/18/00 7:56:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
kent@songbird.com writes:

<< On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 09:23:46PM -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami 
School of Law wrote:
 > This is contrary to my understanding of the facts.  I may be wrong,
 
 You are.
 
 > but
 > I understood that membership in the GA was the primary means of
 > establishing membership in the voting pool for at-large Board members.
 
 The GA has nothing whatsoever to do with the voting pool for at-large 
 Board members.
 
 > If this is not correct, could someone please point me to the relevant
 > document(s)?
 
 The Bylaws.
 
 Haralds proposals now under consideration have copied the provisions of
 the bylaws that relate to the GA.  That's all there are.  The GA has no
 formal role except to nominate candidates for chair of the GA, and to
 nominate candidates for the Board members from the DNSO.
 
 > I would be the first to admit that it is no longer possible
 > to keep up with the ways in which ICANN continually squirms on the subject
 > of what constitutes the general membership, so I am prepared to be
 > corrected on this.
 
 The GA has NEVER had anything to do with the at-large membership.
 
 > 
 > On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:
 > [...]
 > 
 > > It is you who has the apples and pianos.  There are *no* significant
 > > rights inherent in GA "membership", just as there are *no* significant
 > > rights inherent in IETF "membership".  In fact, "membership" is not well
 > > defined for either organization.  This is an important and fundamental
 > > concept, and until you understand it you will be shadow boxing with
 > > ghosts.
 > > 
 > 
 > Incidentally, this is also, as I understand it, not a true statement about
 > the IETF, since "membership" (established by attending 2 meetings in the
 > right time frame) entitles one to be be eligible to volunteer for a
 > nominating committee, selected at random from among the volunteers, which
 > will choose six IAB members. RFC 1601.
 
 That is not a definition of membership in the IETF, that is a 
 definition of the qualifications to be a volunteer for the nominating 
 committee, as you well know.
 
 > The IETF thus has very important
 > input into the membership of the IAB, making the IAB responsible to the
 > IETF membership.
 
 An interesting but deliberately inaccurate twisting of words.  The IETF
 has no formal membership.  This is fact.  You are completely aware of
 it.  No need to play silly word games.
 
 > This is an important and fundamental concept, and until
 > you understand it....
 
 Indeed.
 
 -- 
 Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
 kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
 
  >>