[ncdnhc-discuss] FYI

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear Dave,

Thank you, Dave!
I think that your message itself reveals well what is the problem in your
thinking. So, no more clarification for that. 

Dave, I could be wrong. So, I asked what is so serious problem for members
to withdraw from our constituency by declaring its withdrawal. If there
are some problems found, we should have really the documented procedure
for that as you proposed it. But, generally speaking, common sense is not
documented or goes through review, approval or test because we recognize
that people has universal common sense.


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


On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>