RE: [ga] Agenda proposal

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Michael,

I confess I don't understand the question, but I suspect it is in
relationship with how many people voted in the IDNO vs. in the other
constituencies.

In this context, let me make my thinking clear.

My point, in raising the "only 35" problem was simply that I would
concentrate on proselitism vs. concentrating on complaining about
non-recognition.

I am sure that, if instead of 35 people we had 350, the things would be
radically different.
The methods used up to now, IMHO, have not been the best ones to gather wide
support. To complain and insist in drawing the line between the "management"
of the structure we want to enter and the holy mission of our group does not
attract the average people (that are not holy fighters but want just to
participate).

Regards
Roberto

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Froomkin [mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 July 1999 11:27 AM
> To: Joop Teernstra
> Cc: GAETANO, Roberto; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: 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.   <--
> 
>