Re: Membership criteria - was [ga] NC BS

[Gary Osbourne <gro@direct.ca>]

At 09:15 AM 17/05/02 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

>On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 02:41:03AM -0700, Gary Osbourne wrote:
> >
> > If that wasn't the case, why was I, and I
> > know I'm not the only one in this situation,
> > allowed to register?
>
>Perhaps because the issue hadn't come up before.

Why hadn't the issue come up before? You are a
long time, and apparently present, member of the
Watchdog Committee:
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.fullrecord.html

In two years no-one noticed that individuals such as
I (and I know I'm not the only one), who otherwise
don't fit the recently claimed criteria for voting,
were in fact voting on a regular basis? Some watchdogs.

>Announcements to slashdot make the possibility of
>ballot stuffing by large numbers of of uninformed
>voters look a whole lot more serious.

So /.ers are less informed about ICANN matters than
whom, for example? Intellectual property interests?

You are allowed to care if one, or the other, are
uninformed voters, as am I, but you are not allowed
under the rules to deny them the right to vote for
merely being uninformed. Nor are you allowed under
the rules to screen membership based on one's level
of being *informed* The existing rules do not state
that only *informed* persons may be members.

The existing rules also do not state that only
*informed* persons should be made aware of the
opportunity to become GA members. In fact the
rules are completely silent on what constitutes
an *uninformed* person. The rules also don't give
watchdogs, or anyone else, the responsibility, or
the right, to make such a determination.

As you seem to be a watchdog of the voting process,
perhaps you could inform us of any prior attempts,
or successes, at GA ballot stuffing. If there aren't
any, why are you attempting to address a problem
that does not exist? If there were such, what, if
any, attempts were made to address the problem?

>There are addresses subscribed to the lists for
>other purposes than voting (archiving, press, etc).

And under the existing rules apparently they can
vote unless someone challenges whether they are
persons.

>Many people travel extensively, and handle it.

I'm glad to hear it. I like happy stories.
Hopefully someone else can better handle
answering my questions. Some can also handle
wearing numerous hats up, down, and across the
ICANN pantheon. Others cannot, but would like to
at least be able to try to handle the opportunity
to vote. You apparently, from another post of
yours to the GA today:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01266.html
would rather they remain uninformed:

At 07:37 AM 17/05/02 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 08:09:48AM -0400, James Love wrote:

 >> If a subscription to a GA list (discuss or announce) *or*
 >> membership in an official DNSO constituency,  is a
 >> requirement for the voter registry, the voter registry
 >> page should probably explain this to people who want to
 >> vote.

 > That would only serve people who had no experience in
 > ICANN at all, which would only play to ballot stuffers.

Those who have a valid interest in ICANN and wish to vote
will always be able to negotiate the maze, whereas those
intent on ballot stuffing somehow will never be able to
make it through, is that how it is supposed to work?

So the method and requirements for GA voting are made
as obtuse as possible, but that is a feature, not a bug?
What ever happened to openness and transparency? Perhaps
the watchdog ate it.

>And the number of messages to the announce list
>is in fact rather small.

So if I access the GA list via its web archives
from all manner of strange locales over the past
two years on a quite consistent basis, as I have,
and if I remotely take part in ICANN meetings (and
I doubt there are many, GA members or not, who can
match or exceed my record of such attendance) for
just two examples, I am considered as uninformed.

OTOH, if I only subscribe to a low volume announce
list, and as some of my travelling takes me to places
yet unwired, I sometimes only read them when they are
stale dated, I am considered informed.

Not that *informed* or *uninformed* appear anywhere
in the rules of membership, but just to be clear on
your logic, perhaps you could define your terms. -g

--
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