Re: [registrars] Not a problem

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

Bob,

In my one year of law school I finally managed to learn
what all those store clerks had been trying to tell back
in my check kiting days -- "utterance" is a crime, and I
need only offer a bad check to go directly to jail. The
crime was not latent until some clearing back generated
a bounce back to the merchant.

This is what I find bogus about the hard-liners (Ruiz
for a start), they want a simple rule, possibly because
dealing with interpretation is subjective, and "rules"
promise objectivity (unless you look closely), but also
because they've already got their status acts together.
Their vote isn't endangered by their conduct, only the
vote of some other.

This is what I ment at the WDC meeting when I said that
the only substantive issue this election presents to me
is whether "good faith" or "gaming the rules" rules. It
seems to me that the more complex the rules, the greater
the actual cost to follow them. I used crayon and a fax
to "vote" prior to the WDC meeting, as I don't have a
staff of thousands, and if I did, they'd have been just
as iced-in as I was. A process that simply attempted to
"muddle through", patiently, keeping in mind that every
election result is less important than the process of
holding elections, is more to my liking.

I think this transends Michael and Rick, who are stuckees
in a hung corporate governance structure.

I don't think anyone wants two RCs, but if I'd made good
faith efforts and got told to sod off, I'd cost out the
position.

Eric

P.S. Good point about the Poll Tax.