[ncdnhc-discuss] FYI

[Dave Crocker]

At 12:15 PM 11/26/2001 +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
>Please don't read what I have not written in my message.
>My feeling is that you tend to understand everything in your thinking way.

Thank you.  That was a very helpful comment.  It promotes trust and 
clarity.  It is tempting to return the favor, but then you would think me 
rude, while ignoring your own choice.


>On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > While you might believe there are "obvious" ways to prevent accidental 
> loss
> > of membership, at the moment those various ways are in people's
> > heads.  They are not stated, so no one else can evaluate if they will work
> > properly.
>
>For helping your correct understanding, please carefully read again what I
>wrote for this explanation in my prior emails.

I have a small confession to make:  I have already read your text very 
carefully.  More than once.


>  I will clarify it here again.

As I said:  You have invented this detailed procedure from your own 
head.  I could do that too.  So could Kent.  So could Milton.

In all likelihood, each of us would invent a procedure that is different.

You cannot make a claim that the procedure will work correctly unless it is

         a) documented
         b) reviewed by the constituency
         c) approved by the constituency
         d) tested by being used a few times

As you reflect on your opinions about my reading skills, please note that 
this is approximately the third time I have stated the problem to you and 
you continue to ignore it.

So, one more time:  Until there is a procedure that is documented and 
approved, THERE IS NO PROCEDURE!


> > Excellent.  We agree on two things.  In addition to agreeing there is no
> > current policy, we agree that it would be good to create a policy.
>
>I am sorry for making your arbitrary interpretation.
>Yes, (we have the policy of conflict of interest but it is) simply not
>clear!

I'm sorry, but no.  We do NOT have a conflict of interest policy.

1.  There is no text that states such a policy.

2.   There has been no review and approval of a policy by the constituency.

You are certain that there is such a policy, but you have not yet stated 
where it is described.  Please correct this omission.


> > Oh?  I am most gratified to hear that.  Others who have been making claims
> > about supposed existing conflict of interest problems have been making
> > these claims only to people who are NOT officers of the constituency.
> > So it appears that we have a third item about which we agree.  This is
> > wonderful!
>
>What I mean is that the document doesn't say that, but my argument is that
>such policy could apply even to NCDNHC contact points. Yeah, it's really
>wonderful if you agree to this!

However you know that I do NOT agree.

Further, I hope you know that such a policy would be quite different from 
the ICANN policy and quite different from the conflict of interest policies 
for most organizations.

So, again, it appears that you believe things are quite clear, although 
they have not been written down and have not been reviewed and have not 
been approved.

If the Adcom chooses to disenfranchise Potter Yachters, in the absence of a 
clear and fair policy that is documented and approved by the constituency, 
it will be interesting to see how long it takes for the constituency, 
itself, to become disenfranchised.

All of the indications are that this is a group with no understanding of, 
or interest in, open and fair process.

d/


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