Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Commentary inline below -

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:30 PM
Subject: RE: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS


> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-full@dnso.org]
> |> On Behalf Of William X Walsh
> |> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 2:19 PM
> |> To: ga@dnso.org
> |> Subject: Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS
> |>
> |>
> |> Friday, May 17, 2002, 8:13:46 PM, t byfield wrote:
> |>
> |> > but really, the idea that outreach/input promoted by motion #1
> should
> |> > be spoken of in the same context as (alleged) ballot-stuffing is
> ludi-
> |> > crous.
> |>
> |> It's not ballot stuffing, its issue shopping by soliciting voters who
> |> otherwise are not participants in the process.
> |>
> |> A "residency requirement" of say 3 months would be an effective way
> of
> |> preventing that from occurring, without excluding people for
> arbitrary
> |> reasons.
>
> A much better approach to this issue is to ensure an effective outreach
> and have the numbers within the GA to negate any sort of ballot-stuffing
> or other undesirable actions by a few.

Absolutely. But still some kind of "keep um honest process" is needed too.

>
> Providing each person joining the GA is an individual their views are as
> valid from day one as they would be after 3 months.

Bravo Dassa - someone finally stated the obvious. What makes us say that
someone must wait to participate in our forum or our reccomendations
regarding the management of their IP's to the ICANN as a whole? I think this
is asking for a lawsuit.

>
> Of course, the above really only applies in an ideal world and the
> practical facts do support the inclusion of a validating period after
> initial membership application.  I would suggest a slightly shorter
> period of one month however.

As long as the person is registered, any waiting period is a problem since
this group is starting to take on issues that effect people. Restricting
them from participating in their own businesses, i.e the operaitons of their
domain names and the processes for administering the larger  DNS issues in
the world as a whole will not stand any legal tests that I am familiar with.
It sure doesnt pass the sniff test and that's for sure.

>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html