INTLNET -- please read this msg

[Carlos Afonso]

Sorry, Milton, others in the constituency might want to devote more time
to this. The point is -- do we have sure evidence that this is just an
individual? If it is a non-profit organization, can we refuse, unless
there is clear evidence of some legal wrongdoing? Have we checked all
other applications of our current members regarding how many people are
working with the organization and so on? We have been quite flexible,
and it appears this decision sounds as if using the "individual, not
organization" argument as an excuse to keep them out.

So, I insist we recheck our decision on this.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:
> Carlos: I don't understand why Jefsey insists that he has not been
> given a decision. He has been formally informed in an email that the
> EC did not vote for his application. That is as formal as we get. It
> is recorded on our public archives. He may not like the decision, but
> he cannot claim that there isn't one.
> 
> I do not intend to devote any more time to this.
> 
>>>> Carlos Afonso <ca at RITS.ORG.BR> 11/29/2006 12:54 PM >>>
> I received this from Jefsey. Very strong arguments. I would like the 
> constituency to take a careful look at it, and the ExecComm to review
>  its decision to make sure we are not making a wrong decision.
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: INTLNET Date: Tue, 28
> Nov 2006 15:15:38 +0100 From: Jefsey_Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> To:
> Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> CC: Frannie Wellings
> <wellings at EPIC.ORG>,Iliya Nickelt <iliya at GMX.DE>, Olivier Nana Nzépa
> <anais_ac at YAHOO.FR>, Marcelo Fernandes <mfernandes at CGI.BR>,Norbert
> Klein <nhklein at GMX.NET>, Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu> References:
> <20061128034012.EBD6C240016B at mx.rits.org.br> 
> <456C2598.5010600 at rits.org.br>
> 
> At 13:03 28/11/2006, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>> Dear Jefsey, If it is truly the case that INTLNET is not formalized
>> as a non-profit organization, you could join ALAC (the at-large
>> Internet users constituency), which, by the way, receives orders of
>> magnitude more support from ICANN than NCUC and is higher up in
>> ICANN's grand scheme of things. If your activity is linked to
>> business, there are business constituencies within the ICANN system
>> you could join as well. fraternal regards
> 
> Dear Carlos, INTLNET is most probably the oldest datacoms non-profit
> organisation (1978). We feel really hurt and shocked by all this. We
> came in bona fide to get our right, were attacked by a nastygram from
> a person I know quite well (whose I presume the personal motivations)
> which piled silliness over ridiculous inexactitude. As he did not
> copy me, I politely and kindly sent more information and then a
> documented answer when I got a copy from Milton. I received no
> response from the ExecCom, no question.
> 
> I asked Milton a committed response, I did not get it. I asked you a
> committed response from you, I do not get it yet either.
> 
> INTLNET is formalised as a French non profit organisation under the 
> law of July 1st, 1901, registered on August 22, 1983 under the name 
> of Secretariat International pour les Applications de la 
> Téléinformatique, and using the name INTLNET since July 7th, 1983. 
> This has been adopted in its revised statutes by its GA of  August 
> 13, 1983. I also indicated that INTLNET is so much not linked to 
> business that it has no banking account in use.
> 
> Now, if  you and the Execom decide that:
> 
> - I am a pathological liar (yet a magician for achieving alone the 
> INTLNET's records!), - the US law applies to French organisations
> ("Organizations incorporated as a non-commercial entity (in countries
> that have such a provision in their commercial code)") - I run a
> commercial activity under a non-profit cover (what leads to the
> immediate dissolution of the association and possibly sends me to 
> jail), so INTLNET is _not_ "engaged in activities that are primarily 
> non-commercial, including, e.g., political advocacy, educational, 
> religious, charitable, scientific and artistic."
> 
> you will understand I need a formal decision, so I can lodge an 
> appeal and call on the ICANN Ombudsman.
> 
> Now I understand (and share your concerns) what you say about the 
> NCUC, but we cannot change ICANN and its Bylaws - ALAC is to 
> represent the interests of the individual users through organisations
>  such as the ISOC national Chapters which are open to everyone. Our 
> free (on expense external budget) relational space governances 
> advocacy, lobbying intelligence, operational information, technical 
> and applied research and development, secretariat services, strategic
>  think-tank, standardisation assistance orientation unfortunately
> does not permit us that kind of openness. We need selected, proven, 
> seasoned people. However, from your remark, I will certainly propose 
> ISOC-France to complete its discussed adhesion to ALAC, be the 
> creation of an ISOC-PARIS local Chapter which would join the NCUC and
>  help getting additional interest from ICANN (since local relational 
> spaces gain importance in the WSIS).
> 
> For the time being, we are just trying to help ICANN in the IDN area 
> the same as we do for the other concerned parties. For that I need 
> INTLNET to be at the IDN TF,and therefore to be registered in its own
>  constituency, as it is its right.
> 
> Friendly yours, jfc
> 
>> Jefsey_Morfin wrote:
>>> Dear Chair, and ExeCom Members, I received a mail from Milton
>>> today, stating that: "NCUC has followed its charter to the
>>> letter. Your application was submitted to the Executive Committee
>>> and it was their judgement that INTLNET is an individual not an
>>> organization, and if an organization, not clearly a noncommercial
>>> one consistent with the criteria in the charter. This does not
>>> imply any lack of respect for your work but simply the boundaries
>>>  that the process needs to draw around constituency groups. If
>>> you want to send out letters protesting this decision is it your
>>> right."
>>> 
>>> I thank you to confirm if it reflects your position. If yes, I
>>> thank you to be kind enough to explain its meaning to me, as I
>>> cannot make any real sense out of its second sentence. Best
>>> regards. jfc
>>> 
>>> 
> 
>