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

[Vany Martinez <vany@sdnp.org.pa>]

Hi Kent and all:

At 12:09 p.m. 12/16/00 -0800, Kent wrote:

>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.
Neither were rules that stated that resolutions made in f2f wasn't 
representative of the entire NCDNHC.
So, the NCDNHC resolutions made in Santiago were sent to the DNSO and to 
the ICANN Board as NCDNHC resolutions.  And also it can be found
in the Real Audio archives of the ICANN meeting at Santiago.

>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.
You are not agree, and I respect your opinion.  However, you didn't 
expressed any opinion
about this situation after ICANN meeting in August 1999, as far as I remember.

> > 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".
But it was presented as in behalf of the recently aprooved 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.
Ok...thanks for the correction.  I was wrong about the date that David 
Wasley joined.
However, he also didn't complained about the resolutions made in behalf of 
the NCDNHC at Santiago after
Santiago meeting.


> > 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.
But there wasn't any rule about this issue.  All NCDNHC members present at 
Santiago
though that was proceeding in the right way when resolutions made at 
Santiago were presented as NCDNHC resolutions.
If now, this is not the right way to do thing, this is now...in that time, 
this was rigth to do it.

>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.
But in Santiago meeting, this was our first steps as NCDNHC, and, as far as 
I know no one complained about the issue of representativeness
and the membership at that time was very happy of the rol that NCDNHC Names 
Council representative made in such meeting, and the rol that played 
attendees in general.

> > 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.

but when there was some members of the GA that doubted of what someone here 
said and never took the job to verify the information, what it means?
This people neither asked to any NCDNHC Names Council representative at 
that time about such resolution, neither ask to those who we was at 
Santiago, and after they judged without having any proofs...awfull.

And, by the way.  NCDNHC at Santiago meeting presented to the DNSO and 
ICANN Board several other resolutions, specially regarding UDRP.
Please, don't disenfranchise the hard work NCDNHC made in Santiago neither 
the key rol that played our Names Council members and members present at 
Santiago meeting.

Best Regards
Vany















Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail:  vany@sdnp.org.pa
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3646

--
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