[ncdnhc-discuss] FYI

[Dave Crocker]

At 08:41 AM 11/26/2001 +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
>One is the different concern or interest of NCDNHC from other commercial
>entities. This is more general and very comprehensive difference as a
>unique characteristic of NCDNHC from other constituencies of DNSO. Our
>Charter reflects this.

Unfortunately, this constituency has never been able to state what its 
principals and basic concerns are.

In addition, the charter does not reflect anything special at all.

It would be very helpful for you to cite the places in the charter that 
reflect special characteristics of the non-commercial domain name holders 
and our constituency.


>  Already NCDNHC have represented our own positions
>on most highlight issues emerged in DNSO discussions.

The most distinctive things about most of the resolutions that have been 
passed by this constituency is the lack of concern for the pragmatic 
aspects of global name administration.

In general, this constituency seems dominated by Civil Society concerns, 
rather than Non-commercial concerns.


>  Most resolutions of
>NCDNHC shows up it well. Nevertheless, you argue that the interests of
>commercial interests and non-commercial interests are very similar. It
>simply means that you have a different idea of non-commercial interests
>from other majority of NCDNHC members's thinking.

This is excellent.  You are quite certain that the non-commercial domain 
name holders have different needs and interests from commercial domain name 
holders.

Please state what those differences are.


>To avoid redundant representation of other constituency members,
>non-voting member system was set up.

Please cite the place in the current constituency charter that applies that 
system to these circumstances.


>now unsubscription of contact point email address
>from announce list are regarded as expressing withdrawal from NCDNHC
>because then we could not have any standing communication way,

This rule was announced by Milton some time ago.  We were given no 
indication that it was approved by the Adcom.

More importantly, it was not reviewed or approved by the constituency.

Authority for establishing membership policy, and its revocation, have 
never been assigned to Adcom.  So, you have referred to this rule a number 
of times, but have not acknowledged it lack of legitimate basis for the 
constituency.

At the least, there are basic technical problems with this mechanism.  They 
have been noted -- and ignored -- a number of times.


>Another one is more specific "conflict of interest", which means the
>participation of those who have direct commercial interest in ICANN

Alas, conflict of interest is a more broad and more complicated topic than 
whether one has a commercial interest in ICANN.  By any reasonable measure, 
almost everyone dealing with ICANN has some sort of commercial interest in 
its actions.

At any rate, the issue is not whether it is important to be concerned about 
conflict of interest.  It is whether this constituency may dictate who an 
organization chooses as its representative.  On what basis, does this 
constituency find legitimacy in the parental claim that it knows best who a 
constituency member organization may choose as its representative?


>ure.  Above
>referred ICANN document of "conflict of interest" seems to suggest a good
>solution in those cases.

The URL you gave points to a resolution that says nothing more than "each 
constituency should have a policy".  Hence it offers no solutions.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464