NCDNHC - organizational conflict of interests. (Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN Board Solicits Input
Mueller at syr.edu
Wed Jul 10 01:08:15 CEST 2002
>>> Thomas Roessler <roessler at does-not-exist.org> >>>
>>Whether the travel assistance proposed by GNR is "better" or
>>"worse" as a form of support than what is proposed by other
>>applicants is quite an open question.
>It's a question which should not be answered by the NCDNHC.
Sorry, Thomas, you are flat wrong.
The NCDNHC is the ONLY organization that should answer
that question. We are, for better or worse, the designated
channel for the representation of noncommercial interests
in the DNSO.
The SO structure of ICANN is based on the idea that
domain name policy has distinct sets of stakeholders
called constituencies and that each of them should be
represented in the formulation of policy, and especially
drawn upon when aspects of policy directly bear upon the
constituency in question. ICANN management should be
commended for giving us our due in this instance.
>Even if the NCDNHC is not "associated" with the bid, it would
>clearly benefit from it.
The noncommercial participants in ICANN's process are
SUPPOSED to benefit from the redelegation of .org.
That's what you don't seem to understand.
The opportunity for noncommercial participants to
evaluate bids based on how they, as noncommercial
community members, would benefit from them is
a feature, not a bug. And it's codified in the policy.
Roessler, I don't know who you are but I do know
that you're not a member of the constituency. This
list is devoted to open discussion of pro-noncommercial
policies among noncommercial organizations.
If you have a case to make as to why what you
propose is in OUR interests, make it. Otherwise,
please go away.
More information about the Ncuc-discuss