Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
: Perhaps because the issue hadn't come up before.  Announcements to
: slashdot make the possibility of ballot stuffing by large numbers of
: of uninformed voters look a whole lot more serious.

  Kent, I would have loved to see a big splash on slashdot regarding the
vote..... However, it did *not* happen.  There was only a backpage post,
that generated all of 6 comments (which I have mentioned on several
occasions).   In any case, slashdot readers as a group are hardly uninformed
on DNS issues, and Slashdot has been the source of many stories about ICANN
over the past few years, including several on the Lynn proposal, which was
ripped on Slashdot, as you know.

   The reason there were new registrations to vote in the GA is that for the
first time, the GA was going to hold a vote that was mildly controversial in
terms of substance.  It had never happened before.  Lots of old hands who
had not bothered to register to vote, registered.  It should happen more
often.   And there should be outreach to encourage people to vote in these
matters.   Posting notices about votes in public fora (with pointers to GA
list discussions)  are not ballot stuffing, This is encouraging people who
*are* stakeholders to participate.

    The GA votes are not binding, they are a place, currently the only
place, where there can be popular participation in ICANN related decision
making.  Look at the regular constitituencies.  We have consultants to
Neustar (and other registrar/registry groups) voting in the NCC, as if they
represent non-commercial domain name holders.    That is permitted.   Do you
think that is ok?

  Jamie

--------------------------------
James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040



:


--
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