Re: [ga] Re: NCDNHC supported an individual domain name holders constituency in principle

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 01:45:52PM -0500, Vany Martinez wrote:
> David Wasley:
> 
> You wasn't in Chile, the rules was different than now,

The initial ncdnhc charter was submitted to ICANN shortly before 
the Santiago meeting.  There were no rules in that charter that stated 
that a group of members in a face to face meeting may make resolutions 
on the behalf of the entire NCDNHC.

The facts are that the physical meeting attendees voted on a resolution,
and that resolution was never voted on by the full constituency.  You 
claim that these facts make that resolution a "resolution of the 
NCDNHC".  I don't agree.

> and the resolution 
> was made in that way,.  If you want to verify this,  you just have to 
> listen the Real Audio Archive.

The RA archive verifies that the meeting attendees voted on a 
resolution.  That does not make that resolution "a resolution of the 
NCDNHC". 

> I am saying the thruth, I was there, you wasn't and you wasn't member of 
> the constituency by that time as far as I know, David Wasley.

Mr Wasley joined July 15, 1999.  The Santiago meeting was Aug 24.

> NCDNHC made that resolution in that way....you cannot change the resolution 
> NCDNHC made.

The NCDNHC did not make that resolution.  A set of members of the ncdnhc
who HAPPENED TO BE AT THAT MEETING made the resolution.  That is a
distinction in fact, not a distinction in theory.  A group of citizens
of Panama is not the same as Panama itself, and they don't speak for
Panama unless there is some defined formal process by which they gain
that authority.  There have never been rules in the NCDNHC charter that 
confer a similar authority on anyone.

Mr Wasley was a member of the NCDNHC at that time; he was not given an
opportunity to approve or disapprove that resolution, nor were any of 
the other members who were not able to attend.  This is an especially 
important concern in the NCDNHC, where, arguably, many members cannot 
afford to attend the physical meetings.

> And I am not being irresponsible.   I am saying the things that happened in 
> Santiago Meeting.

Sure.  Things happened at the Santiago meeting.

> I am a responsible person that I cannot stand in 
> silence seeing that a person
> is called liar when I know what is the truth.  And also is in audio 
> records in Real Audio format.

Nobody is lying, nobody has been called a liar, and there are no actual
facts that are in dispute.  The issue is the SIGNIFICANCE of the 
non-disputed facts.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html