RE: [wg-review] Karl's assigned objective.

["Eric" <eric@springbreaktravel.com>]

I agree Kent! ?What is wrong with allowing @large members joining a
constituency simply because that is where their interests lie?  As a member
of a constituency should my vote count more or less than any other vote?  Of
course not (IMHO).

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Kent Crispin
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 7:29 PM
To: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Karl's assigned objective.


On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:18:42AM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> Regarding one of the issues to which you referred, about the domain name
> holders having votes,

During the formation of the US constitution there was a vigorous debate
about whether being a property owner should be a requirement for being
able to vote.  Ben Franklin reportedly said the following:

    "A man owns an ass; he can vote. The ass dies, the man loses his
    vote.  Who really has the vote?"

In our modern parlance:

    "A person registers a domain, they can vote.  The domain gets taken
    away in a UDRP action, they can no longer vote..."

It is utter nonsense to think that only domain name registrants should
be allowed to be members of *any* constituency.

--
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html


--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html