Re: [ga] WatchDog: Final Statement

["Javier Rodriguez" <jrl@mail.lima.net.pe>]

Dear Joop:

I agree with the general sense of your message.
I recognize the many imperfections of these and all systems.
As you say, there mus be better process, better "watchdog"
committte, and for sure that we have lost something because
a so short time for sending the "nominations".

I think that there is a lot of things to improve for the next time.
My point is that there has been a "valid" process, not a "perfect"
one.  It is OUR task to get a more perfect process next time.  Each time
we will have a better process.  No doubt on it.

Thanks for your comments,

Have a nice day,

Javier


At 12/5/99 11:53:00 AM, you wrote:
>At 13:51 4/12/99 -0500, Javier Rodriguez wrote:
>>
>>    b) Nominations that have arrived too late and, according
>>         to the rules, are not included (sp!) in the process.
>> 
>I notice that some good and valuable nominations have been rejected for
>this reason. (Hans Klein, Peter Dengate Thrush) 
>The question arises: was the time given not a little short? 
>I myself found that there was no sufficient time to solicit the acceptance
>of the candidate before making the nomination. Normally, this is good
>practice.
>Something to consider for the next time.
>
>   c) Nominations that have been rejected because there is
>>         - Doubt about the identity of the person.
>>         - Allegations that all they come from people that are
>>            fake personalities.
>
>Allegations alone (without substantiation)  should never be grounds for
>action. This opens the door for abuse by anyone who cares to make (false)
>allegations. We have seen quite a few examples on this list already.
>
>>         - Finally, there is public reference to URLs and other
>>             internet information that give some indication on the
>>           sense that all this "nominations" come from people
>>           that, in my humble opinion, has something to say,
>>            but doesnt find strongness in his words and thoughts
>>           and "build" differente personalities and identities
>>           to show support to his ideas.
>>
>
>I presume this information is the substantiation that would be required as
>a minimum to act upon. 
>
>Personally, I would rather give the voters a disapproval option to deal
>with such candidates, that to give judicial and final powers to an
>unelected watchdog (or nomination) committee.
>
>Such an option has the additional benefit that such candidates can "get the
>message", rather than another opportunity to be a martyr.
>
>
>--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
>the Cyberspace Association,
>the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
>http://www.idno.org  (or direct:) 
>http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Rodriguez                     jrl@mail.lima.net.pe
AXISNET                                    VicePresident
Peruvian Association of Internet Users and ISPs
Other duties: ECOMLAC      ISOC -PERU      IPCE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------