Re: [ga] Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002

["Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>]

Sorry to spoil a good conspiracy theory, but..
this has been coming (at least in re the cctlds) for a lot longer that WLS.

Dues have long been unpaid, notices sent - all in conformity with the
rules...

regards
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@yahoo.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: <cpage@dotster.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 2:43 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Loss of voting rights, October 20, 2002


> Hello,
>
> I suspect the real reason for this is linked to WLS, and the appeal
> that is currently underway. If those 3 constituencies were removed (all
> of whom voted against WLS), then only 4 constituencies remain. The
> Business Constituency can still be counted on to vote against WLS.
>
> However, the IP and gTLD registries voted for WLS last time. That
> leaves the Registrars Constituency as the possible "swing vote" (they
> voted against WLS last time), that could give a new vote a 3/4
> majority, and thus a "consensus". And if you saw the WLS debate in the
> Registrars Constituency last time, I wouldn't put it past some of the
> participants to try to reverse their vote by any means possible (e.g.
> voting according to market share, so that NSI would have a majority in
> the Registrars Constituency).
>
> Note that ICANN has seemingly not responded to Dotster's appeal, and
> could be waiting for the above scenario to be in place.
>
> However, the above can be thwarted, if the need arises, by having
> opponents of WLS donate the money to one of the three disenfranchised
> constituencies (whoever owes the least, presumably), so that they can
> cast one more vote against WLS. With 2 out of 5 votes against WLS, even
> if the Registrars Constituency position was turned, they'd still be
> short the 2/3 majority required to make a new "consensus".
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> --- Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com> wrote:
> > > Until payment is received for all past due amounts, including any
> > late
> > > payment fees, the ccTLDs, NCDNHC, and ISPCPC will lose voting
> > rights as of
> > > 20 October 2002.  This will have an impact on the Names Council
> > meeting on
> > > 28 Oct 2002.
> >
> > How perfect to be able to disenfranchise half the community from the
> > very
> > procedure that confirms what is already known. Without a documented
> > record
> > of a formal vote, consensus in the wider cannot be confirmed, which
> > serves
> > the Staff well if they want to continue claiming a greater
> > understanding of
> > consensus in the wider community than the Board's own domain name
> > supporting
> > organization. Well done Bruce.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Joanna
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> --
> 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