Monday, July 19, 1999, 10:31:38 PM, Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep, I sure did.
OK, then it will get forwarded to the membership committee. I assure
you, as I stated before, the committee will consider it on an equal
basis to every other application.
Including the section about voting members who belong to other
constituencies. I believe you are listed as being a member of another
constituency, are you not?
The IDNO welcomes ALL domain name owners who meet the membership
requirements, in an open and transparent fashion. Unlike the ICANN
and the DNSO, we don't consider the position they are likely to take
with regard to their plans as a factor in membership decisions.
>> Are you sure you want to become a member, Kent-- having to agree to that
>> offensive "loyalty oath" that reads: " I support the principles and mission
>> statement of the IDNO constituency." ??
> No, I don't agree to that offensive loyalty oath. I simply ignored it.
So you do not support the principles of an Individuals Constituency in
the DNSO?
Then you must of made a mistake in asking for membership in a group
you don't think should exist.
It is reasonable (and indeed approved by our membership) that members
should support the concept of an Individuals Constituency in the DNSO.
> As anybody can see, this is the first move in a PAB takeover of the
> IDNO. ;-)
No, I don't see it that way at all. If you had not made the one
statement above about not supporting the concepts of an IDNO within
the DNSO, and provided you are not a voting member, or control a
voting member of another constituency (per our rules) then I'd say
there was no question about your membership. These are the EXACT same
rules all members are required to meet. The same way the NCDNHC is
making rules about who can and cannot be a member, and the same way
the ISP constituency set standards defining the qualifications of an
ISP to join.
This is totally in line with the ICANN dictates over constituency self
organization.
> I didn't expect any better of you...
Expect what? That we make an exception to our standing rules, applied
in a consistent and fair, and open, manner just because you have some
"celebrity" effect in that your request for membership is being made
so public?
I would think that our applying the same standards no matter what
shows that the IDNO has the consistency and strength. The "weak"
thing to do would be to approve your membership simply because denying
it might create controversy. Frankly, I would welcome you, and
others who don't share my views, in the IDNO, provided you met the
qualifications. Many of the people I voted for in the now closed
election do not share my views, and indeed my disagreements with some
of them have been most public over the last couple years. A group
that can't handle criticism from inside won't last long. The DNSO and
ICANN could learn a lot from that.
>> in view of its extraordinary character, pending answers to the
>> above fundamental questions about your intent, the PAB's intent and
>> CORE's intent before referring the ultimate decision to the entire membership.
>> (in the most democratic fashion)
> Actually, my intent is absolutely none of your business. I am a
> completely legitimate individual domain name holder. That's all you
> need to know.
You are right, intent has nothing to do with it, and will have no
impact on the decision of the committee I expect. It will instead
have to do with the qualifications for membership, as approved by the
IDNO membership.
Lets address those parts of our charter that directly affect the
decisions with regard to membership :
4.1. IDNO constituency membership is open to any individual person
who can demonstrate "colour of title" to a Domain name.
OK, you qualify here.
4.2. No individual may have more than a single membership in the IDNO.
So far, you have no other membership in the IDNO, so this isn't a
problem either.
4.5 No single domain name may be used to support membership of more
than one individual.
OK, no problem here, my records show know one else is using
songbird.com as a basis for membership in the IDNO
4.6 The domain name used as a basis of membership must be a Domain Name
that is not a top level domain name, nor a reserved second level Domain
name in registries where this level is not open for individual
registration.
Your domain is a part of a 2nd level registry that is open for
individual registration. No problem here.
4.9. Non-Exclusivity - Members associated with other DNSO constituencies
may be members of the IDNO constituency as long as they meet the
eligibility criteria.
OK , no problems here yet but......
4.10 Non-Duplication - Members are subject to the following voting
restrictions:
a.) Any member who is either a voting member,
representative of a voting member, or who
effectively controls a voting member in one or
more other constituencies of the DNSO may not
vote or stand for election in the IDNO unless the
member, for a period of at least nine months,
waives and does not exercise such voting rights in
those other constituencies.
So while so far you qualify for membership, you cannot be a
voting member unless you are not a voting member and do not
control a voting member of another DNSO constituency. So this
means while you can be a member, if you exercise voting rights in
another DNSO constituency, you are ineligible to participate in
voting in the IDNO.
b.) Any member who has been elected to the
Names Council by another DNSO constituency may
not vote or stand for election in the IDNO during
his or her term.
See above. Same deal.
These are the standing rules as posted at
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/organiz.htm (note I did include only
those that directly affect membership qualification, and did not
include the sections defining the terms, since I did not see any of
them directly applying in any way to Kent)
So provided you meet this qualifications, as every other member has
been required to do, you can expect your membership to get approved.
If any membership committee members have any questions about your
qualifications under any of the rules, they will contact you for
clarification prior to the committee making a decision. This is
standard, and indeed many people were excluded from voting in this
election because they failed to respond in a timely fashion to the
committee's request for more information or clarification.
Kent, you can expect no more or no less than any other applicant.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying
to every time you have something to whimper about.
