[ga] ERC's Second Implementation Report
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: [ga] ERC's Second Implementation Report
- From: DannyYounger@cs.com
- Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 18:28:45 EDT
- CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Laurence_Djolakian@mpaa.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
The ERC's Second Implementation Report contains a really bad idea. Consider
the following example:
Under the current system, a policy could be proposed that might not be
supported by the registrars and registries (perhaps because such policy might
cost them money). Currently the remaining five constituencies could outvote
these two groups and pass the recommendation in the public interest by a vote
of 15 to 6 (attaining more than the two-thirds majority required to establish
a consensus policy).
Under the ERC's plan, the votes of those under contract are equivalent to the
votes of the remaining constituencies. If the registries and registrars do
not support a proposal (perhaps because it will cost them money), the
consensus policy recommendation will never be passed because a two-thirds
vote is now theoretically unattainable, and even the additional votes of the
NonCom selected members are insufficient to reach that two-thirds level.
This ERC plan does not serve the public interest.
I encourage those constituencies not under contract to vehemently oppose this
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html