Re: [IFWP] RE: voting

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

John and all,

  As ICANN and the DNSO is supposed to represent ALL of the stakeholder
community why would not ALL constituencies that form of their own accord
be represented?  Unless there is some particular prejudice perhaps....

John B. Reynolds wrote:

> Michael Sondow wrote:
> >
> > Esther Dyson a écrit:
> > >
> > > That's really up to the constituencies themselves - as long as
> > the voting
> > > rules pass muster: open, nondiscriminatory, broad participation, etc.
> >
> > I posted a request to you to allow voting in Berlin. You replied
> > that it was too soon. Are you now saying that you lied in that
> > previous post? If so, what was the purpose of your lie? To distract
> > me from organizing a vote for the ICIIU's NCDNHC?
> >
>
> You posted the aforementioned message and Esther's response yesterday under
> the title "No NC elections until after Berlin".  It is not merely a request
> to allow Names Council voting, but rather a proposal that ICANN adopt a
> specific meeting schedule of your devising.  Esther's reply declines to
> endorse your proposed schedule, nothing more.
>
> That said, it remains my position that ICANN should not recognize the
> results of any NC elections held at or before the Berlin meeting.  Since the
> eligibility and procedural rules for most (if not all) constituencies remain
> in dispute, potential members of the electorates will be unable to determine
> whether they are entitled to vote until ICANN determines which
> constituencies will be recognized, and under which conditions.  Elections
> held in Berlin would also disenfranchise those not physically present there.
> Holding elections under such conditions would violate fundamental principles
> of fairness.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208