Re: [ga] Registrar Constituency WLS Response to Verisign - A DNSO GA Ballot please...
--- Jeff Williams <email@example.com> wrote:
> It would seem to me that the DNSO GA should also have held
> a vote on the WLS and the .ORG delegation statement. I had requested
> these two things before, and received not reply from either Thomas,
> or Alexander. I think Alex had mentioned that the DNSO GA
> would be submitting a ballot on the WLS issue. Alex? If not,
> than again I would like to request again such a ballot be
There were already multiple opportunities for folks to show their
approval or disapproval of WLS (I don't follow the .org issue much).
Each time, overwhelmingly the GA was against it. I'm not sure what
another vote would prove. It might be a step in the reverse direction,
too, in that a "200-20" vote is just numerical, whereas having folks
provide their name along with their position, as has happened in the
mailing list, is more forceful. Anonymous voting in the age of the
internet would be very difficult (one side could easily sign up a few
hundred or thousand "supporters" to manipulate a vote where the voters
are anonymous). The way the RC did it, with registrars voting in
public, is best, as it's less open to manipulation (similar to how
voice votes were held in ancient Greece).
WLS was mentioned on Slashdot, too, where it was derided.
It's unclear that Verisign respects democratic institutions, in any
event. At some point (maybe we're well past that already), we might
need a "Magna Carta" to limit the power of this monarchy.
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
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