On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:58:58PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 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?
Nope. I'm a member of the GA.
> 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.
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!
>>> 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?
You *just* said, above
> ...we don't consider the position they are likely to take
> with regard to their plans as a factor in membership decisions.
And here you are considering it, aren't you?
Your questions about what I support and don't support are irrelevant
and offensive.
> 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.
Nope. It's not. No other constituency has such a requirement for
membership.
> > 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.
None of them have loyalty oaths.
> This is totally in line with the ICANN dictates over constituency self
> organization.
I don't think so.
> > 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.
Sort of like the KKK.
> The "weak"
> thing to do would be to approve your membership simply because denying
> it might create controversy.
Go for it.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
