Re: [ga] WatchDog: Final Statement - Try, http://www.fec.gov

[Bob Davis <bob.davis@netzero.net>]

Javier and all DNSO'ers,

  There was an excellent suggestion for a better "WatchDog"
procedure suggested by our spokesman on several occasions,
that of the US Federal Election Commission at http://www.fec.gov ,
Javier.  So your rather weak and invalid excuses here in your
comments to Joop, are less than reasonable or convincing to
me or our members...

Javier Rodriguez wrote:

> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Davis...

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html