>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["Roeland M.J. Meyer"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:17:16 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 20 12:17:14 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com (condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com [199.108.175.226])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E8DF11B
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:16:56 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from hawk (hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com [199.108.175.236])
> by condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA10552;
> Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:10:32 -0700
>Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Kent Crispin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: "William Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Kent Crispin applies for IDNO membership
>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 09:10:31 -0700
>Message-ID: <002701bed2ca$642bc750$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
>Importance: Normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Hello Kent,
>
>Rumor has it that you have applied to become a member of the IDNO.
>
>Since I just got elected to the Membership Committee (IDNO-MC), and I
>have been fairly busy, I have only recently taken down my filters
>against you. Since this is the case, it is possible that your
>application, for membership, may have gotten tossed, from my system
>anyway. Strangely, no one else (IDNO-MC) seems to have seen it either.
>This could be caused by a variety of reasons, including software failure
>oin the web-site. We are testing it now. I need not tell you that this
>comes as somewhat of a surprise. I hope that you are sincere.
>
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
>> Behalf Of Kent Crispin
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 7:01 AM
>>
>> 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.
>
>Now I also never saw the original note that asked the question. So, what
>is it that you "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.
>
>I thought you were listed as a key player in the NCDNHC? But, that does
>not matter. The IDNO only considers the point instance, by charter.
>cross-dependencies are only an issue with other constituencies. I assume
>that you mean the DNSO-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!!!!
>
>For the interest of fairness, I will ignore this bit of rudeness, on
>your part.
>
>> >>> 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.
>
>William and Kent, the IDNO does NOT have a loyalty oath. I wish you
>would both quit refering to that clause as such. it simply explicates
>the charter and mission statement as the reason for joining the IDNO No
>organization tolerates members actively working against itself. Those
>members quickly find themselves transfered to non-member status. Yes, I
>am aware that this pretty much casts the mission statement and charter
>into solid concrete. But, IMHO, that's the way it has to be right now.
>
>> > So you do not support the principles of an Individuals
>> Constituency in
>> > the DNSO?
>>
>> You *just* said, above
>
>No he didn't.
>
>> > ...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?
>
>Considering which, please explain. You reference isn't clear.
>
>> > 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.
>
>That's because most other constituencies assumed the implied support and
>they have other, more severe, barriers to entry in their organization.
>
>> None of them have loyalty oaths.
>
>Nor does the IDNO. BTW, in your job, you have taken a loyalty oath. As a
>US citzen, you have taken the "pledge of allegiance", yet another
>loyalty oath. Please don't bore us with tripe about how loyalty oaths
>are evil. Be that as it may, we don't have a loyalty oath. If you do not
>support the mission statement and charter then I question why you would
>want to join. The IDNO does not ask that you pledge allegiance, it only
>asks confirmation that you support the mission charter. In a way, it is
>pledging to an idea, but that's the whole point of an organization
>anyway, isn't it? Otherwise, why should it exist? We do not ask anyone
>to pledge to the entity itself, we only confirm the idea.
>
>> > This is totally in line with the ICANN dictates over
>> constituency self organization.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>
>You are entitled to your opinion.
>
>> > > 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?
>
>Public as it may be, I have not seen any membership request from Kent
>Crispin. We are currently investigating and testing the system. As
>stated above, there are other reasons why I, personally, may not have
>seen it.
>
>Kent, you may be asked to re-submit your application, at some point.
>
>BTW, I take my position very seriously, including dealing with folks
>that I may personally dislike, in as fair and objective a manner as
>possible. Kent, you have been known to stretch such tolerance to the
>extreme, I recognize that. However, this is exactly why we have so many
>members on the membership committee. It tends to wash out individual
>faults in self-discipline. That is the hope, anyway.
>
>-----------------------------
>Roeland M.J. Meyer
>IDNO Membership Committee
>http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-----------------------------
>
>
>
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
