ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ISOC to bid on .org

  • To: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
  • Subject: [ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ISOC to bid on .org
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
  • Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 21:10:02 -0700
  • CC: discuss@icann-ncc.org, gen full <ga-full@dnso.org>, atlarge discuss list <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
  • Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
  • References: <008b01c20eff$207d3100$0b00a8c0@essential.org> <20020607082220.C9992@songbird.com> <Pine.GSO.4.33.0206071918060.1667-100000@servidor.unam.mx> <1024.68.49.186.101.1023535257.squirrel@QuestMail.FutureQuest.net> <20020608073829.A20274@songbird.com> <008b01c20eff$207d3100$0b00a8c0@essential.org> <5.0.2.1.2.20020609130508.0211f4d8@pop.paradise.net.nz>
  • Sender: owner-ga-full@dnso.org

Joop and all,

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> On 09:11 a.m. 8/06/2002 -0700, Kent Crispin said:
>
> >As you know, in my opinion the ALSC (and the NAIS) simply ignored the
> >issues of difficulties with elections, and I have documented that pretty
> >thoroughly.  Using domain name registrants doesn't address the issues.
> >Domain name registrations can be bought wholesale for $6;
>
> This possible mass registration "problem" is a red herring that can easily
> be overcome by building an initial voters registry that is

  It isn't a problem anyway.  Whether registrations are in mass or not
is not a relevant valid concern.  Hence hardly worth even discussing
or debating.

>
> 1. based on registrations that are at least 12 months old

  This seem to very greatly from you comments and statements
in the IDNO as well as the At-Large, Joop.  In any event however
why should a registrant/stakeholder/user be required to wait 12 months
to vote on issues that would effect them or for representatives that
may be in a position that they would determine what may effect them
as well?  How can you justify this?

>
> 2. applies a simple scrutiny process, like the provision of a name and a
> residential address, to make reasonably (not 100%!) sure that all voters
> are unique individuals.

  Good point here finally Joop.  However residential address (Physical)
is not required in the US for voter registration, nor is it in a number of
other modern democratic countries either.  As such, why should such
a requirement be imposed in this situation?

>
> 3. has a certain minimum number of voters (5000?) to insure against sudden
> capture by an organized group.

  Well 5000 is not a good number, but yes, a minimum number should be
considered...

>
>
> -Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
>    interim webmaster
> www.icannatlarge.com
> Sign up and spread the word.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


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



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>