[ncdnhc-discuss] FYI

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear Dave,

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

> >On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> Sorry, no.  However, let's skip over the question of whether it was 
> "discussed".
> 
> The decision represents a basic matter of membership policy.
> 
> The constituency never approved such a policy.
>
> >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.
> 
> Really?  I'm sorry but you just invented that mechanism.  It has never been 
> documented or stated.
> 
> And therein lies a very clear problem.  Different people have different 
> ideas about correct procedure.  The only way to make sure that policies are 
> clear and that they represent the desires of the constituency is to place 
> them before the constituency for review and approval.  This has never been 
> done for this policy.

Could you explain what is so serious for member organizations to withdraw
from NCDNHC organizations when they declare to do so? Is it a policy or a
common sense?


> >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.
> 
> Thank you for acknowledging that we currently do not have a conflict of 
> interest policy.

Yes, simply not clear! So, I am proposing to clarify the policy by
revising Charter. Because it is enough clear to me but some others don't
think so. 

> It is possible that officers of the NCDNHC should have restrictions on 
> their activities and their other ICANN-related involvements.  At the least, 
> such issues need to be stated very, very clearly.
> 
> Please note, however, that the policy concerns officers, not general members.
> 
> And please note that such a policy would mean that Milton's own activities 
> as a UDRP judge would disqualify him from holding an NCDNHC position...

That's true. I have never said that the docmented policy could be applied
to general members. My point is that in line with that spirit of the
document, we as non-commercial constituency should adopt a similar policy.
Our willingness of making such policy had already been declared in our
prior resolution. ICANN's "conflict of interest" document would provide a
good framework for our policy. 


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