[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [ga] NC violations of ICANN charters


i think there should be an individual domain name holders consituency as

Think of the constituencies as all living in their different bungalows at
the ICANN resort.  The trouble with this resort is that it doesn't have a
dining room or a ballroom - nowhere for everyone to meet *and* mingle.

How're you gonna meet that cute ISP rep if you never get out of the
registrar constituency?

I believe the GA should get three votes and you do what you can to prevent
fraud - it'll only be three votes out of twenty four...  These three votes
will show something that the individual consituency votes will not - the
distilled will of the entire assembly.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: R.Gaetano@iaea.org [mailto:R.Gaetano@iaea.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 1999 2:49 AM
>To: avc@interport.net; ga@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: [ga] NC violations of ICANN charters
>Antony, Kent,
>Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>> Kent Crispin wrote,
>> +One could amend the bylaws to state that the GA shall elect 3 NC
>> +members.
>> I think this is an excellent idea.  I would favor it even
>> more if it were
>> reserved to those who had joined no other constituency.
>May I disagree with you.
>I prefer to have a constituency for Individual DN Holders, and let the GA
>what it is, a forum for ideas with no restriction.
>The difference may be subtle, but important: the moment you set up a voting
>system (like the one that will choose the reps to the NC, you need to get
>into the whole mess of certification of identity, as for a membership. This
>will not be appropriate for the GA, but perfectly reasonable for a
>Constituency, that will have to set up its own rules for membership (and
>verification thereof).
>I confess I still don't understand why we are trying to find complicated
>ways to address a simple problem like participation of individuals to the
>NC, when the creation of a specific constituency may solve all the