Violation of ICANN Bylaws (was Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] FYI)

[J. William Semich]

Everyone:

Sorry, but no matter how many NCDNHC members support what Dany says, it is 
still a violation of the ICANN bylaws with regards to the establishment of 
Constituency policies:
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-B

"Section 3. THE CONSTITUENCIES
(a) Each Constituency shall self-organize, and shall determine its own 
criteria for participation, except that no individual or entity shall be 
excluded from participation in a Constituency merely because of 
participation in another Constituency ... "

By excluding someone from the right to vote, Dany is blocking 
"participation" in this Constituency.

Bill Semich
Internet Users Society - Niue


At 10:02 PM 11/25/01 -0500, KathrynKL at aol.com wrote:
>I support what Dany has written below.  It is fully consistent with the 
>way the NCC has handled similar situations since its origin.   It would be 
>fair to treat this situation in the same way we have treated others.
>
>I also support the per email limit because I believe that it is the only 
>way to prevent a few people from monopolizing the conversation on this 
>list.  We have already driven too many of our members off the list by the 
>signal to noise ratio.  Let's do better.
>
>regards, kathy
>ACM-IGP
>
>Dany vandrome at renater.fr wrote:
>
>
>>Kent,
>>Despite all rethoric to will have time to put on the list, I keep 
>>challenging.
>>I consider that you cannot be a voting member rep in the BC and also a
>>voting member rep in the NCC without experiencing any conflict of
>>interest.
>>Therefore, for the next vote (most probably for the MdR resolution
>>approval), I will ask the AdCom to leave Potter Yachter with a
>>non-voting status in the NCDNHC. You are still welcome to ask Potter
>>Yachter to designate someone else to be its NCDNHC rep. In such case, I
>>am sure you will be attentive that this new rep will have a real
>>autonomy to vote!
>>
>>Remark holds also for FRAX.
>>
>>Dany
>