[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Open and Transparent Democracy
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 13:26:43 -0500
- From: Michael Sondow <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Open and Transparent Democracy
Rick H. Wesson a écrit:
> I was under the impression that there were to be an initial set of
> constituencys that were outlined on the bylaws from ICANN.
Who says any different?
> If you wish to
> subvert the constituency problem just make your ballot proposals for the
> entire membership.
I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. "Subvert the
constituency problem"? "Make ballot proposals for the entire
membership"? Is there some hidden meaning behind these opaque
phrases? If so, be so kind as to explain them.
> Please remember that the site i built is not for binding anyone to a
> piticular constituency, it is to help a group of individuals make
Yeah, well, the only decision that needs to be made at the moment,
as far as I can see, is whether to make the personal commitment to
join the DNSO and to decide which constituency to adhere to. The
rest is just so much hot air, IMHO.
There are just two months before the Berlin meeting. I'd like to get
the NCDNHC in some kind of shape to resist the others, the
commercial constituencies. If you want to spend the time arguing
over how many Internet nerds can dance on the head of a microchip,
that's your business.
And please fix your mailer so it does the indents correctly. The way
you've got it (see following), you're attributing to yourself what
was posted by me. :~/
> > Rick H. Wesson a écrit:
> > The NCDNHC (Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency) needs
> > to be further defined so as to exclude not only commercial companies
> > but their organizations (like INTA, ICC, etc.), which may themselves
> > be non-profit. Thus an organization like the ORSC, which one might
> > want to include in this constituency, may unfortunately have to be
> > excluded in order to keep out other non-profit organizations whose
> > members are commercial. This could perhaps be usefully discussed,
> > and even voted on. But who will be allowed to vote on it? There is a
> > problem of the chicken and the egg here.