Joop: Too much of the idno's time is spent on proceedure and not enough time is being spent on membership drives. You need more members in the idno, not more proceedure. You'll find once your membership exceeds the 1,000 mark there will be no need for this type of protection. There is safety in numbers Joop, concentrate on what is important - fatten the ranks. At this time I am firmly against the IDNO having any ICANN representation. The organization is not yet mature and ready for this important role. Get more members, and I assure you the idno's position will be firmed up. Regards Joe On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Joop Teernstra wrote: > At 07:39 AM 29/09/1999 -0400, Ken Stubbs wrote: > >i am curious here joop > > > >please show me anything in the ICANN bylaws that is similiar to the article > >you are discussing below? > >who defines what "harm" is ? > > > Hello Ken, > > The article can be found at the IDNO website, still reacheable at > www.idno.org/organiz.htm > This article came into being when the newborn IDNO had to protect itself > from "members" who's goal was not to help the IDNO forward. > It has never been applied. > It is not something that ICANN had to worry about. Not yet. It is > something it does worry about when it has to come up with a membership. > > In case action needs to be taken against a member, a Fair Hearing panel > will be called into being to hear all sides and determine the extent of the > harm. > > > > > --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of > the Cyberspace Association, > the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners > http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/ >
