Re: [ga] 8. Registrants representation

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Joop,

I agree with you completely.  Let's move forward as you propose.  

As I am in the midst of family matters at the moment (preparing a birthday 
party for my youngest) I will be off-line until Monday.  Thanks for your 
assistance.  It is most sincerely appreciated.

-- danny --




--- On Fri, 9/25/09, Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ga] 8. Registrants representation
> To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, "GA" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Hugh 
> Dierker" <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 7:15 PM
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "GA" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
> "Hugh Dierker" <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 3:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] 8. Registrants representation
> 
> 
> > 
> > I would venture that the Board isn't keen on elections
> because of the probability that what they view as "the wrong
> people" would win (as they did in the prior
> elections).  It's a control issue.
> > 
> > But let's move on:
> > 
> > (1) how do we get a registrant constituency
> established in the GNSO, and
> > (2) how do we arrive at a process to appoint an
> at-large director.
> > 
> > Are there any participants on this list that are
> willing to work on either of these two efforts?
> > 
> 
> Danny,
> 
> 1. We (?) could revive a hack-proof online signup procedure
> and gather again a 1000 constituents and re-petition the
> Board to allow its elected representatives a seat in the
> GNSO.  I have shortened my life on this once, let
> someone younger (no pun intended) do it this time.
> 2. We (here assembled in the GA) could propose and approve
> a nomination procedure and then start nominating candidates
> according to that procedure.
> 
> To answer Eric's question: limit the representation to
> registrants, because they have skin in the DNS and the
> registrars' contractual obligations-- and they are paying
> the ICANN tax.    "Individuals' representation" is
> just an easy strawman to shoot down.
> 
> Joop
> 
> > 
> > --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: [ga] 8. Registrants representation
> >> To: "GA" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 10:07 AM
> >> Why do people argue between
> >> Individual representation and registrants
> >> representation.
> >> 
> >> Clearly with modern (read modern to mean anything
> >> beyond what Crispin can understand when running
> systems ten
> >> years out of date) voting and verification
> abilities,
> >> worldwide elections are now feasable and should
> be
> >> implemented as promised in the original white
> papers and
> >> evidenced by Karls seat.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>