Re: [ga] MOTION - "In Favour" or "Opposed" ???

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 03:26:35PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>    Any move to seek such an amendment, however, should be predicated on
>    having (a) a whole lot better definition of what the constituency
>    would
>    comprise than I have seen so far on _any_ constituency; and (b) an
>    organized,
>    dedicated, serious bunch of people (who have better things to do than
>    poke
>    sticks at each other) who would each "sign" the document seeking the
>    amendment.  Alternatively, one might create a temporary "Independent
>    Domain Name Holders Constituency Committee," list of members attached,
>    and the document be signed by some spokesperson.   And beyond that, it
>    should show the list of _registered_ voters ("Have you registered to
>    vote yet?")

The idea originally (going back to the very origins of the DNSO) was
that there would be an "at-large" constituency, which would include
anyone.  Having an open, unauthenticated membership poses certain 
challenges in terms of representation -- you can't run things by votes 
because votes can easily be rigged.  So you need some element of 
top-down organization.  See http://at-large.org for a strawman I put 
together some time ago.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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