[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Voters interest and Defining a voter's roll
Joop and all,
Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Dear GA list members,
> Whenever the DNSO GA has been polled as a body, there have been allegations
> of unrepresentativity of some sort.
Not of some sort Joop. Plain stupidity on the part of the NC is what
created the problem as there was no way to verify voters, which was
available to be done on your "Voting Booth" but was not done. Why?
The truth is anyone's guess. My amongst others guess has already been
plainly and clearly articulated. (See DNSO GA Archives)
> The physical meetings have always had the problem that they are mostly a
> selection of people able to attend the meetings with the help of an
> expense account.
I don't believe that the availability of an expense account is that only
for lack of physical participation. The fact that these meetings were poorly
planned and also actively fostered lack of inclusiveness in some aspects
at these meeting by the ICANN board which also has been reported,
even by yourself in the case of the Santiago meeting.
> Here we have a virtual GA on-line with a few hundred subscribers, that ,
> according to Roberto and Harald, does not include all the former physical
> participants that it should include.
Agreed. There is not reason of validity that those folks can't participate.
> Yet, the participation barrier here is not money, but only a tolerance for
> some noise in one's mailbox. Lurkers don't even risk to be personally
> abused. <g>
Personally abused? Please describe abuse in this context? What abuse?
Sure, discussions get hot here at times, that is to be expected. But if
you can't handle the heat, get our to the kitchen.
> Now when we are talking about list rules, it is clear that those not
> subscribed to the list have no need and no interest to vote on list-rule
True. But those that are do.
> In other words for list issues the total voter's roll is nothing more than
> the subscriber list at any given time.
> It is important to have a defined roll, so that this roll can be frozen
> prior to the announcement of a vote.
Good point, and I recommended this as the spokesman for our organization.
> May I propose that those interested in voting enroll themselves volutarily
> on the dnso website, or via an email to a trusted listmember willing to
> volunteer building this roll?
To the Web site or the DNSO Announce list should be sufficient. To
an individual member is a slippery slope at this juncture due to the Fraud
that has already been perpetrated on many "Interested Parties" by the NC
and the DNSO List admin.
> Then both issues of identity and the measure of interest in voting can be
Only if this is handled carefully. See my comment immediately above
for a hint.
> This is better than judging voters' interest from members participation in
> a poll from which they may have consciously wished to abstain.
It is ONLY if it is handled properly, honestly and correctly as well as is
open to anyone interested.
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , founder of
> the Cyberspace Association,
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org (or direct:)
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208