Re: On voting and appeals - Was: Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>]

Eric,

> >
> > Which three substantive changes?
> >
>
>Let us ignore the first nomination which was proceeding along before, the
>procedure edict from the secretariat and Harald.


It should be ignored, indeed.
The nomination started on 2001-03-16, and the nominations were requested to 
be sent to ga-nominations@dnso.org, as per instructions summarised in 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html.


>1. A startling announcement that 10 nominations were required.

Required?
Harald issued a warning, that NC asked for 10 endorsements (not nominations) 
in the past election. To avoid problems, he suggested to bring every 
candidate up to the quota. That would have avoided the possibility of 
putting roadblocks to the election process.

>2. The apparent though not formally announced overturn of that decision.

Since there was no "decision" from Harald or myself, there could not have 
been an "overturn" of the decision.

>3. Alteration of rules after JW pulled out.

Which rules, in detail?
To the best of my knowledge, the only thing that has been done is to send a 
second ballot, and pray tell how this can be seen as alteration of a rule.
It has been explicitely stated by the Watchdog Committee that the election 
was continuing without alteration. Not even an additional delay in the 
deadline has been granted, precisely because the election process could not 
have been altered while en-route.

>
>This is a slippery rock.  I was asked to stand on it I can live with
>slippery, things are never quite as sure footed as you would like them to
>be.  But you did not tell me that you were also going to be shaking that
>rock, that is cheating.  If this group as a whole had not just suffered the
>outcomes and irregularities of the AT Large elections this would not be so
>painful. Had the WG-Review report not been so altered before being 
>presented
>this would be easier.

And the pretended irregularities in the AtLarge elections were what, 
exactly?


>
>To add insult to injury there is a proposal that would put the same people
>who did the above in charge of correcting those problems.


The proposal being what?


>
>Yes at this time I object and appeal the decision and the election, it is 
>my
>contention that this election was illegitimate. It is further my contention
>that the people who voted for me were denied their rights as netizens and 
>all
>that that confers.


Names and facts, please, if you have any.
Which right was denied and to whom, for instance?


>  If my right to appeal is not honored and handled with
>dignity I will file a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, San 
>Diego,
>Downtown District to enforce my rights and seek injunction and other
>appropriate remedies.

If you want to object and appeal the decision, please follow the procedure 
for it, which is (taken from the same Web page above):

"Any instances of fraudulent nominations or endorsements should be reported 
to this committee at the following email address: ga-watchdog@dnso.org, with 
a copy to the Names Council at council@dnso.org, This committee and the 
Names Council shall have the sole discretion as to how to deal with any such 
reported activity."

Of course, if you will not find the answer of the Watchdog+NC sufficient, I 
assume that you should petition the ICANN Board for decision.

Of course it is also your right to file whatever lawsuit with whatever court 
you may see fit.
(I would be surprised if you did, but that's another matter)

Best regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

--
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