Re: [ga] Elections (Seconded)

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

George:

The problem with ICANN - be it elections here or in the @large - is that
it has no serious intent in providing you a choice.  But your welcomed to
trash your head against the wall and be a part of bottom up ICANN process
- which we all know - and your finding out is bogus.

Mr. Roberto Gaetano and his side kick Harald earlier this year engagaed in
electoral fraud.  We discovered it was intentional and premeditated.  But
nothing was every done.

And if you only knew the level of fraud in these elections.  Oy.

regards
Joe Baptista

                                        http://www.dot.god/
                                        dot.GOD Hostmaster
                                        +1 (805) 753-8697

On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, NFT Services wrote:

> Exactly, what is this second to vote a motion on?
> 
> Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but I think if there is an issue
> to send from the virtual "Whole" GA at large, it would be one of displeasure,
> and correction of these "elections."  With what seems to be a somewhat large
> contingency of the GA voting community without, for whatever reason, pins
> This election does not, will not, and can not represent those for whom this
> elected representative is suppose to be representing.  As such, in my opinion,
> the official vote should be postponed until all registered voting members that
> were active at the beginning of the voting process have the pins they need to
> vote, OR that the rules for voting (as in the necessity for the pin) to be
> altered in such a way as to keep integrity within the vote.
> 
> My believe is that a strong message from the whole hopefully will be at least
> not ignored, and who knows, possibly heard.  Of course it is also my believe,
> that outside sources can be heard and put pressure where we sometimes seem to
> not have a voice at times.
> 
> George Kougias
> gkougias@bigplanet.com
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> >   I believe that back in January of this year it was determined
> > by consensus, although not a measured one, that the DNSO
> > assembly members should and would have a right to have a vote
> > on specific issues.  As such I second Joops motion here...
> >
> > Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >
> > > Joop,
> > >
> > > >I agree that action is already on the way in some form. But,
> > > >A vote from the virtual GA is a useful exercise. We haven't voted all
> > > that often and it sets the right precedent that allows the WHOLE GA to
> > vote
> > > on issues that otherwise could be rammed through a physical GA.
> > > >It also prevents people from making the point that the whole GA didn't
> > > get the chance to vote on the issue.
> > >
> > > For a vote, I need a motion and a second.
> > > But more important, I need to have a debate on the issue going on, to
> > > make sure that people are interested.
> 
> ..... <SNIP -  through end of messsage>
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

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