RE: [ga] Re: Byfield on GA Reform / comments

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 04:41 a.m. 10/09/2002 +0200, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
>On 02:01 10/09/02, Karl Auerbach said:
>>The second proposition would be to establish a mailing list *outside* of
>>the control of ICANN and the DNSO.  ICANN can't object - isn't such
>>"outside" organization one of the goals of the ALAC?
>
>Unfrotunately we have had that a time: it was named the IDNO, then it was 
>named the @large. The fist failed because Joop's polling booth was too 
>sophisticated, the second is failiong because Joanna has no polling system 
>at all. GA fails because Thomas has control on the polling system.
>
>If we add all these experiences, the real issue is to develop a good 
>motion system that peole would enjoy using. I had the chance as a PO of 
>the IDNO to observe how such a system might work (a very, very simple 
>e-mailing plus a vote reader). But it needs automated motion support, 
>filing and reporting. Most of all an humble and efficient Chairmanship 
>respecting the voters and the rules. What I never saw a Chair able to do 
>when confronted to real life pressure.
>
>So, I came to the conclusion that a Chair must be a machine - to be 
>neutral; timely etc. and the real Chair has just to make it work or to 
>control it. This is the only way to have the decorum. But it calls for a 
>real development.

Jefsey,

When you set it up the way you propose, *the code will become the law*.
All very fine if the developers of the code would have sophisticated 
understanding of issues of administrative and constitutional Law and be 
utterly trustworthy and neutral.

Fatal, if the current fights for control would simply extend to the 
development of the software.


--Joop

--
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