[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] WatchDog: Final Statement
At 13:51 4/12/99 -0500, Javier Rodriguez wrote:
>
> b) Nominations that have arrived too late and, according
> to the rules, are not included (sp!) in the process.
>
I notice that some good and valuable nominations have been rejected for
this reason. (Hans Klein, Peter Dengate Thrush)
The question arises: was the time given not a little short?
I myself found that there was no sufficient time to solicit the acceptance
of the candidate before making the nomination. Normally, this is good
practice.
Something to consider for the next time.
c) Nominations that have been rejected because there is
> - Doubt about the identity of the person.
> - Allegations that all they come from people that are
> fake personalities.
Allegations alone (without substantiation) should never be grounds for
action. This opens the door for abuse by anyone who cares to make (false)
allegations. We have seen quite a few examples on this list already.
> - Finally, there is public reference to URLs and other
> internet information that give some indication on the
> sense that all this "nominations" come from people
> that, in my humble opinion, has something to say,
> but doesnt find strongness in his words and thoughts
> and "build" differente personalities and identities
> to show support to his ideas.
>
I presume this information is the substantiation that would be required as
a minimum to act upon.
Personally, I would rather give the voters a disapproval option to deal
with such candidates, that to give judicial and final powers to an
unelected watchdog (or nomination) committee.
Such an option has the additional benefit that such candidates can "get the
message", rather than another opportunity to be a martyr.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org (or direct:)
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/