Legitamacy of Chair and opinion polls was:Re: [ga] Re: Proposal for list rules/actions

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

All DNSO'ers,

  Their is no legitimate Chairman of the DNSO at this time as the fraudulently
held election of such clearly indicates and is documented.

  Opinion polls are just that an opinion.  The one held for "Haralds Rules"
or should I say "Proposed Rules" was not conducted in a creditable manner
as has already been pointed out.  This leaves the DNSO with no legitimate
Chair and no "Rule Set" decided.  Until or unless these inconsistencies
are corrected the DNSO as a body cannot provide creditable advice to
the ICANN as required in the ICANN Bylaws.

William X. Walsh wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 26-Jan-2000 Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >>
> >> On 25-Jan-2000 Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >> > Finally, if positions are going to be collected, and action is taken
> >> > based on the expression of those positions, let's call them what they
> >> > are: VOTES and not "opinion polls."
> >>
> >> How would you decide who was eligible to vote?
> >
> > How was it decided who was eligible to participate in the "opinion poll"
> > which the Chair is using as the basis for the wholesale adoption of
> > Harald's proposal? With the bragging of at least one individual that they
> > voted multiple times, why was this "opinion poll" used in an attempt to
> > validate anything other than the fact that the poll happened?
>
> The opinion wasn't.  The Chair clearly stated it didn't present a mandate, and
> that one reason might be the abusive use by some parties.  The message from the
> Chair was clear, he was acting on his own authority as chair to adopt the rules.
>
> The opinion poll was not the basis of that decision as far as I know.  Nothing
> I have read has indicated that to me.
>
> My understanding is that there was no vote, and that issues in the GA have not,
> to this point, been based on voting, because we haven't gotten that far in the
> process.
>
> > Requiring a voters home address helps to avoid a situation where one
> > individual claims to be numerous individuals and that the single address
> > for all these individuals is a business address. A dedicated fraud may be
> > successful claim to be 3 or 4 people, but they aren't going to be able to
> > effectively claim to be 95,000.
>
> "Home addresses" can be manufactured just as easily as email addresses.
>
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
> DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: DSo Networks
>
> iD8DBQE4jmjh8zLmV94Pz+IRApTqAJwJbVHzTBgtNq9dQWgLw0H66hUqIgCgo+PG
> ergZ3qJ4iMFEkclx+1vgGAo=
> =cdQB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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