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

Re: [ga] Agenda proposal

Could someone please fill me in on 
1) how the total number of eligible voters compares to the number in the
already-approved consituencies at the time they were approved?
2) how the % voting (or actual # voting) compares to the numbers in the
already-approved consituencies at the time they were approved?

We can then debate the relevance of these numbers....

Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 10:42 AM 27/07/1999 +0200, R.Gaetano@iaea.org wrote:
> >To have new individuals joining the DNSO and promoting the cause of the
> >individual DN holders constituency will be more effective than claiming that
> >the previous pollings were inaccurate.
> >
> Roberto,
> I did not say anything about accuracy.
> What I'm saying is that a  constituency is not co-opted by the existing ones.
> >In fact, if I understand well the results of the latest elections in the
> >IDNO, you had only 35 voting members, a large part of which claim that they
> >don't want to have any connection with a corrupted and captured DNSO +
> >ICANN. Maybe the real problem lies there.
> >
> You said it, not I. :-)
> 88 members had the right to vote, of which 35 voted. Not a bad turnout. If
> you know what a large part of these voters "claim", you know more than me.
> If they were not interested in the DNSO,or ICANN, why would they elect
> people who support IDNO membership of the DNSO?
> The IDNO has been kept out. This fact has defined it so far. Maybe the real
> problem lies there.
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
> the Cyberspace Association,
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org

A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                -->   It's hot there.   I'm elsewhere.   <--