[ncdnhc-discuss] Membership Status ofSiliconValleyPublicAccess Link

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear Kent,

> > Sure! Non-commercial registries like most ccTLDs. Now, they have
> > non-voting status in our constituency. We have never excluded them from
> > the NCC.
> 
> I said "voting participation".  Explain to me why a university that 
> runs a registry should be excluded from voting in the NCC.

Could you inform me of which university member belongs to other gTLD or
ccTLD constituency or Registrar, Business constituency? All university
members are now welcome to NCDNHC.

> > If it is to be described, we could say that the interests of
> > non-commercial entities would seek public interests but not private
> > interests
> 
> That's mostly a tautology, not an explanation.

It's one of clear distinctive characters of non-commercial entity.

> > or users' interests but not providers' interests. I believe that
> > you could find out very clear differences between two regarding the domain
> > name system if you could read again the whole resolutions that had been
> > adopted in this constituency.
> 
> You have missed the point entirely.  The *problem* is that the NCC has a
> restrictive definition of who can be members, and even more, the
> selection effects are creating a constituency with a very narrow,
> unrepresentative, ideological base.  You cite the resolutions of that
> narrow ideological base as examples of the views of non-commercial
> entities in general.

The membership definition of NCDNHC, and all resolutions had come up from
members' consensus. You call it "a constituency with a very narrow,
unrepresentative, ideological base". This is truly "very narrow,
unrepresentative ideological base" statement.


> In other words, the NCC not representative of non-commercial entities 
> in general, which it is suppose to be, and the resolutions you cite are 
> actually examples of that narrowness of the point of view of the NCC. 
> They are not examples of the concerns of non-commercial entities in 
> general.

It means that you have quite different idea of "non-commercial entities in
general."


> The problem is quite fundamental -- the early membership of the NCC
> includes people who have aggressively proselytized their point of view,
> and have largely captured the NCC -- a concrete example of capture in
> operation.  

Kent, I personally respect your experience and many ideas and your deep
commitments in this work, but I don't think that the earlier members'
idea, regardless of what it is, should be an absolute yardstick. Idea is
evolving. Quite contrary to your argument, I think that this list is truly
being captured by a few voices. And our resolutions always clarified what
our constituency is. 


> I know that you will claim that this is just "outreach", but the
> outreach is rather selective in fact.  The original vision of the NCC
> (which I know, because I was there when it was proposed) was for
> libraries, schools, and so on.  But the current membership includes very
> few such entities.  and instead includes a disproportionate number of
> organizations whose central mission is political activism. 

NCDNHC is open to all libraries, schools and all other entities
non-commercial. Therefore, it has become more open. What's wrong? Why do
you think that political activism should be excluded?


> These organizations are now jealously trying to exclude anyone who 
> doesn't follow their point of view.  Hence the completely bogus stuff 
> about "conflict of interest".  

"conflict of interest" is very serious topic. It's not for exclusion but
for safeguard for our sound position.


> There is no conflict of interest issue.  An entity that qualifies for
> membership should be able to chosw WHOEVER IT THINKS WILL BEST REPRESENT
> ITS INTERESTS.  The constituency should not be pre-defining what it
> thinks those interests are. 

As you know, conflict of interest issue IS. ICANN has its own policy for
that. And our constituency is very sensitive to this issue. We have such a
provision in our charter and adopted one resolution to urge the principle
even to NC and all other constituencies.


Regards,

Chun Eung Hwi
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2- 583-3033
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667 
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   ehchun at peacenet.or.kr   
------------------------------------------------------------