Who is keeping scores? Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] About Marketing Practices in .ORG

[Kent Crispin]

On Tue, Jan 01, 2002, Barbara Simons wrote:
> Dear Vany,

[extremely nasty note snipped]

> Assuming that an online vote can be held in time, that is fine.
> But if there are problems, your responsibility is to represent
> the consensus from the meeting in Marina del Rey, even if
> you don't agree with it.

According to the charter, and the "resolution on resolutions" (which
really only applies to "resolutions"), nothing is considered a "position
of the constituency" unless there is an online vote.  Vany's proper role
as an adcom/nc member is to ensure that there is a vote.

It should be noted, BTW, that Vany did indeed take up a lot of time in
the F2F meeting; it was, fundamentally, over this same issue: the F2F
meeting was voting on matters that were partially in conflict with
matters already voted on online. 

In the matter at issue, the Mueller resolution on .org voted on in the
MdR meeting was based on a serious misconception of what the term
"sponsor" means.  Therefore, that resolution is meaningless as written,
and therefore irrelevant.  Effectively, the "consensus of the MdR
meeting" was assumes that there are 77 centimeters in a meter, and it is
a useless waste of time to refer to it. 

We, the online participants, now know that the Mueller resolution voted
on in the F2F meeting was meaningless -- let's move past that.  The
problem that faces us is as follows:

  If .org is unrestricted, then the non-commercial sector has no
  legitimate right to any special governance position, and we have no
  special role as a constituency in the matter of .org. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent at songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain