Re: [ga] 8. Registrants representation
- To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] 8. Registrants representation
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
This is why we do not lump the two together. This thread is just about
registrants and what can be done. --- All positive. This should not dissolve
into another "us versus them" debate. ICANN has lead Sotiris, Danny and Joop
down that road about 4 times, good for ICANN staff and bad for registrants.
The two concepts may be exclusive of each other,,,, they may not be. They may
be complimentary, they may not be. But here we must agree to limit the
discussion and debate to Registrants.
The mechanisms used to organize must not be controlled by one interest. (this
is why Avri's post comments on the GA using donations was bogus)
--- On Fri, 9/25/09, Joop Teernstra <terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
> --- 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
>> 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 years out of date) voting and verification abilities,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.