[ncdnhc-discuss] FYI

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear Dave,


I don't feel repeat those self-evident things. 
I will make comments only for clarification.


On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

> >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.

This seems to be very unclear to you although I cannot understand it.  It
has been discussed in a few f2f meetings and mailing list before our one
integrated list had been separated into two lists. I remember it has been
clarified and notified many times through email list.

And it is not so significant for you to think over that. Technically, if
there is somebody who want to unsubscribe from announce list, the person -
the contact point of one specific member organization is to be confirmed
as to whether that organization would withdraw its membership. If the
person confirm to maintain its membership, the unsubscription is to be
cancelled or the contact point is to change into the other email address
depending on the contact point's request. Here is no serious flaw at all.  
It is simply to avoid the dead list member left who remains as a formal
member, but has no communication with NCDNHC at all. What I underlined is
that the contact point is in fact the organization itself in our
communication and activity environment.

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

I am sorry for my mistake of copying the same urls for two different urls.
The second URL is
http://www.icann.org/committees/coi/coi-policy-04mar99.htm
This policy is truly what we, as non-commercial constituency, should
adopt.


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   
------------------------------------------------------------