Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules

["!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> The Booth can be operated with a voters' roll with individual passwords.
> For this occasion Roberto and Harald opted for an informal opinion poll
> without security against dishonest use.

I understand Joop.  That's why my position is that it has no value
whatsoever.  I want this group empowered not wall flowered.  I don't think
we have a dispute here.

> My own preference would have been to assign passwords to all applicants who
> request to be on a voters' roll.

It would of been a more official expression of the vote.  But we also need
a means of verifying the voters.  I want a voters list.  I want to know
the details.  And we need some time to present viable alternatives to this
travesty the NC thinks passes mustard.

So in short order I agree with you.

As for the polling on this issue - i think i may vote several time
against, and maybe a few for - or it could be the other way around.  The
only reason for doing this is to expose the shame in the process.  It's a
complete waste of our collective time.

Now if we could get a real vote together, and get everyoe in on it,
current and past members as defined by the great icann god, and if Mark
could get off his ass and finish the electronic rules of proceedure.  I
think he's done a fab job, and it's worth having the job completed.  But
we have to give him some time and encouragement.

And I'd like to see the old Roberts Rules of Order Revised ther too, add
some balance and some choice.  And maybe we can have a section for "no
rules" - how novel, again just for balance.  Then I would consider this a
vote and a proper election.  Marks rules of order seem best at defining
proceedure in an electronic environment.

But choice is paramount but this poll is nothing more then a farce by the
NC and the chair we never wanted.

Regards
Joe