Re: [ga] The North American DNSO BoD chair

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 13 October 1999, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
>
>In Karl's particular case, it is the candidate himself who was 
>engaged in "nomination stuffing".

[...snip]

Then the NC itself is guilty of this.  The Secretariat of the NC 
sent out an announcement on 17 Sep 1999, that began:

   [
   [ Sent to: ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org, council@dnso.org
   [          wg-b@dnso.org, wg-c@dnso.org, wg-d@dnso.org, wg-e@dnso.org
   [
   [ The members of the Names Council are requested to forward
   [ this announcement to the Constitiencies mailling lists
   [ in order to reach all DNSO General Assembly members.
   [

In short, the NC via their Secretariat urged the NC members themselves
to go to each Constituency and do exactly what Karl did.  Why did
Karl do it?  Because ICANN steadfastly refuses to recognize any form
of an individual domain name owner's constituency.

Further, the messsage stated:

        The Names Council has resolved that a candidate, in order to
        be nominated must have the support of, at least, 10 members
        of the General Assembly. For this purpose, anybody who is
        subscribed to the General Assembly mailing list, the
        Announce mailing list or the list of one of the
        Constituencies of the DNSO is considered a member of the
        General Assembly. As the Annouce and General Assembly list
        are open, anybody wishing to participate in the nomination
        process may subscribe to one of these lists and be
        considered a member of the General Assembly.

...here, the Secretariat explicitly directs people to subscribe to the
GA list, then participate in the vote.  This is exactly what you're
accusing Karl of, except that Karl knew he was a candidate, and 
was requesting support for himself.

Most people call this "campaigning".  

(the entire announcement may be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Archives/msg00655.html )

It's also interesting that even the beginning of the message assumes
that the GA is broader than the original definition accepted in San
Jose.  But that's another discussion, in a different post.

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA