[ga-full] Re: [ga] Voters interest and Defining a voter's roll

[James Touton <jim.touton@netzero.net>]

Roeland, John and all Assembly members,

  It is becoming very evident that the DNSO is so wound up in perpetuating
it's own created ill repute perpetrated by the currently illegitimate NC and
"Chair"/"Co Chair" it is doubtful without some of the suggestions that
David Jenson made some weeks ago that the DNSO can pull itself
out of the filth that it has chosen to amerse itself in.

Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> Been there, done that, no tee-shirt found....
>
> In the DNSO Paris draft, this was hotly debated. However, the view is that
> voters would form constituencies, Those that didn't group themselves would
> still be voters. Only the Singapore modifications, uniaterally instituted by
> the ICANN BoD, changed that, for the worse, and cast the constituency
> mechanism in the amber we see today. The inclusive fluidity envisioned, in
> the Paris draft, is long gone.
>
> Then we have the view which you bring forth here, this disenfancises many of
> the major players. NSI has touted itself as the only member of the gTLD
> registry constituency (patently false but accepted by the ICANN). Other
> registry operators have nowhere else to form. The constituencies authorised
> by the ICANN BoD do NOT cover all of the remaining players. The ICANN itself
> acknowleges this. To then exclude all other voters, based on the fact that
> they do not belong in a currently constituted constituency, is egregiously
> wrong. However, it is a predictable "next move" for those who want to
> high-jack the process.
>
> I don't have a copy of the Paris draft, but the ORSC draft may be found at
> <http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-orsc.proposal.shtml>.
>
> As far as angels and pin-heads are concerned, you might consider the outcome
> of your proposal. Unless one is captured within a few, very narrowly
> defined, constituencies, one is disenfranchised (completely outside of the
> process). Granted, I am all for republican forms, but the republics must be
> broad enough to include a majority of those effected or it is not a
> republican form. It is instead, a tyranny of a few select groups, with no
> pretense at representation.
>
> >  -----Original Message-----
> > From:         owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]  On
> > Behalf Of john.c.lewis@bt.com
> > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 8:29 AM
> > To:   ga@dnso.org
> > Subject:      FW: [ga] Voters interest and Defining a voter's roll
> >
> > I think that we are debating the numbers of angels that can dance
> > on the head of a pin..........
> >
> > I can read the local newspaper (equal the ga@dnso.org) but that
> > does not give me any local voting rights,
> >
> > Contrast the US situation quoted below (I don't know if its
> > correct) where you must register to vote, in the UK your
> > existence as a local taxpayer identifies your right to vote,
> > although you have to register as well. Why, we even call them
> > constituencies.
> >
> > Shouldn't the voting rights at the GA/DNSO not have similar
> > dependency on some membership of a constituency where bearing the
> > costs give some basis for involvement? I acknowledge this still
> > causes a problem for individuals and the great unknown 'At Large'
> > user base, but this will then bring the need to address that
> > issue more sharply into focus, once we have resolved the more
> > tractable problem.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > John C Lewis
> > Manager - International Organisations Europe
> > BT delegate ETNO Executive Board
> > BT co-ordinator ICANN representation
> > Tel: +44 (0) 1442 295258 Mob: +44 (0) 802 218271
> > Fax: +44 (0) 1442 295861
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [SMTP:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
> > Sent: 03 February 2000 07:31
> > To:   Joop Teernstra; ga@dnso.org
> > Subject:      Re: [ga] Voters interest and Defining a voter's roll
> >
> > At 15:30 03.02.00 +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> > >Now when we are talking about list rules, it is clear that those not
> > >subscribed  to the list have no need and no interest to vote on list-rule
> > >issues.
> >
> > not entirely - there may be people who have left the list because of the
> > noise level. And I know of at least one person who claims to be following
> > the list by reading the archives.
> > Those could be interested. But I think the great majority of interested
> > people is the list subscribers.
> >
> > >In other words for list issues the total voter's roll is nothing
> > more than
> > >the subscriber list at any given time.
> > >It is important to have a defined roll, so that this roll can be frozen
> > >prior to the announcement of a vote.
> > >
> > >May I propose that those interested in voting enroll themselves
> > volutarily
> > >on the dnso website, or via an email to a trusted listmember willing to
> > >volunteer building this roll?
> > >
> > >Then both issues of identity and the measure of interest in voting can be
> > >addressed.
> >
> > This idea reminds me of the way US elections work; everyone's entitled to
> > vote, but in order to actually vote, you must register....
> >
> > Do you think the roll should be public (in order to monitor the action of
> > the roll-keeper), or private (to protect people's privacy)?
> >
> > In any case, more than one person should have the responsibility for
> > monitoring the roll, I think.
> >
> >                        Harald
> >
> > --
> > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> > Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no

James Touton
Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
INEGRoup (Stakeholder)

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html