[ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd: [nc-deletes] Minutes - Conference Call, November 15

[t byfield]

DannyYounger at cs.com (Fri 11/22/02 at 12:44 PM -0500):

> Adam, you write:  "The constituency does not accept chapters of organizations
> that are already members."
> 
> Why then does your website list as members the following chapters?

danny --

the main source of challenges to NC applicants has, of course, been
that beloved tag team, the c-serpents, less commonly known as 'dave
crocker' and 'kent crispin.' since they had little interest in chal-
lenging ISOC chapter applications, no one challenged them.

since the current membership conflicts with the stated policy on ad-
missions, then it seems like the options are:

    (a) we adapt policy to operational realities
    (b) we grandfather in 'verboten' members then adhere to policy
    (c) we purge the membership

(c) is obviously unacceptable, and (b) seems a bit silly to me. so
i guess (a) would make the most sense. since the policy has merit,
maybe the solution is to modify it in a way that preserves the in-
tent -- basically, creating an exemption for ISOC and a procedure
for other orgs to apply for exemption. 

having said that, i myself will insist on vigorous debate because,
in my view, ISOC's relation to ICANN is suspect. the nonprocess in 
handing .org to that nearly bankrupt organization made it clear, if
there was any doubt, that ICANN is a crature of dotcom-era fiscal
theory. it spends an awful lot of time bailing out its coterie of
lapdog incumbents. ISOC has now become such an organization, and 
in doing so has jeopardized its ability (if indeed it had any) to
speak or act in ways that are critical of ICANN. i have no interest
in seeing the NC colonized by ISOC.

however, i also think it's fair to ask why you're interested in the
NC. iirc, your recent comments on the worth of this constituency 
were quite negative.

cheers,
t