Who is keeping scores? Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] About Marketing Practices in .ORG

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales]

Barbara:

Barbara Simons wrote:
> 
> Dear Vany,
> 
> Perhaps we can find some points of agreement.
> 
> The vote was for sponsored unrestricted.  Ignoring
> the question for now of whether or not sponsored
> is a viable option, the constituency voted almost
> unanimously for sponsored + unrestricted.
> Surely, if people were opposed to the notion of
> unrestricted, they would have voted against the
> proposal.  Therefore, I conclude, and I hope that
> you will too, that everyone who voted at that meeting
> except for you is opposed to a restricted dot org.
> 
> I'm sure that you will agree that one of the responsibilities
> of our elected leaders, including you and Milton, is to
> facilitate the operations of our constituency.  In that
> spirit and to reduce the overwhelming amount of email
> that this topic is generating, I propose that:
> 1.  You acknowledge that the constituency does not
> share your views about requiring that dot org be
> restricted.
Barbara,  my voting in the Names Council depends on the product of the
online votation
which is the only official results according to our charter, regardless
my views.  That's my compromise with the NCDNHC.  

The mission of the AdCom is administrative only.  The AdCom
organize the votations, organize the documents, collection of membership
fees and donations, open discussions...But don't take as excuse
that I belong to the AdCom to block me for express my point of views
and to document them.  I will remember you that we are here representing
our
organizations and in somehow if you wants to prevent to any member to
express their point of views, also you are preveting a Non-Commercial
organization
to have voice, regardless if the organization representative has being
elected
AdCom and/or NC member.

This is not about recognition or not of point of views when the online
voting hasn't taken place yet, 
and the only one that has being pushing to the AdCom
to finally make this online votation.   In fact, everybody has the right
to have its own point of views.
But we agree in the NCDNHC that whatever decides the constituency in an
online voting are views of the constituency as a
whole and as such the Names Council members (Milton, YJ and I) vote
accordingly.
The NCDNHC are composed by 184 members.
I understand that Chun is ready to
send ballots, but still I am waiting response of the other AdCom members
to 
so officially Chun can send ballots. I may assume that holidays are bad
days to contact
almost everyone, and as such, probably we are missing inputs of many
other members because
December is a really problematic month.  Please Barbara read again
NCDNHC Charter before claiming official results.

By the way, Barbara, my points of views are moved because my compromise
with the NCDNHC mission stablished in the NCDNHC charter.  
I am sure that many of our members are moved by the same ideals even 
if our views are different.  However, I documented succesfully 
that Sponsored Restricted for .ORG is more near to be in compliance with
our charter in the best
interests of the Non-Commercial sector we claim to protect and defend
rather than Sponsored Unrestricted.  

So the vote will be a matter of conscience.
 
> 2.  Milton agrees to submit proposals to the constituency
> prior to submitting them outside the constituency unless
> there is a deadline imposed from outside that prevents that.
> And in that case I propose that Milton at least submit
> the proposals in parallel.  Given the huge amount of email
> that certain members of this constituency generate,
> I believe it would be reasonable for Milton to give a
> cutoff time for comments.  Otherwise, we will email any
> proposal to death, to say nothing of continuing to drive
> from the list people who don't have the time to read 20 - 30
> postings per day from the ncdnhc alone.

Agree! 
Not only Milton.  Anyone that is member of a WG, TF and or
Committee has the duty to submit in the NCDNHC behalf any propsosal
drafted  by such person to the NCDNHC before submit it,
no matter if they are NC members or not, for comments and I would
suggest that
everytime that we have to send official positions, we organize votations
where all constituencies has
a chance to execute their right to vote.  This is the
only way to know if the comments of 10 or 30 members reflects or not the
thoughs of 184 members.

Best Regards
Vany



> 
> Regards,
> Barbara
> 
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
> 
> > Milton:
> >
> > I didn't lost.  This is not a championship, I am not participating in
> > any
> > championship against someone neither keeping scores.
> >
> > I believe that we are all together to achieve the same goals: watch and
> > protect
> > Non-Commercial interests regarding domain names.
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Vany
> >
> > Milton Mueller wrote:
> > >
> > > The constituency voted in Marina del Rey. You lost, what was
> > > it, 27 - 1?
> >
> > --
> > Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales, BSEE
> > Information Technology Specialist
> > Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> > Member of the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency
> > Tel: (507) 317-0169
> > http://www.sdnp.org.pa
> > e-mail:  vany at sdnp.org.pa
> >
> > Are you a Non-Commercial organization and have a domain name?
> > Join the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency, ncdnhc.icann-ncc.org
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales, BSEE
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Member of the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail:  vany at sdnp.org.pa

Are you a Non-Commercial organization and have a domain name?
Join the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency, ncdnhc.icann-ncc.org