<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Registrants Identification for Membership
- To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [ga] Registrants Identification for Membership
- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 15:31:36 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}p{margin:0px}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
<P>Eric and all,</P>
<P> </P>
<P> Well said, well said indeed! I could not agree more!
Indeed being inclusive rather than preclusive</P>
<P>is best. I also agree even more so than Eric stated here, in that we
get started here. I believe</P>
<P>we 'Already' long ago started as the GA = General Assembly which is all
inclusive and not just</P>
<P>for Domain Name Registrants. Other non-registrants have similar
issues, concerns, ideas, proposals,</P>
<P>and interests that are equal in every meaningful aspect to Registrants,
Registries, Registrars,</P>
<P>and other SIG's. To do or consider otherwise in by ethics and some
nations as well as recognized</P>
<P>by the UN as discriminatory, and illegally so, moving 'Trains' not
withstanding.<BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff
2px solid">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Hugh Dierker
<HDIERKER2204@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: May 21, 2010 8:18 AM <BR>To:
ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew McMeikan <ANDREWM@xxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: [ga]
Registrants Identification for Membership <BR><BR>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>
<DIV>Great stuff here. But be clear. This Identification process is for the
Constituency. A membership criteria. Do not stick it to people
contributing to the foundation. First get a group going. I suggest doing
it here, which does not have such a restricted gateway.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Mr. Palmer is already showing the problem with engaging in it right up
front. Leave the flaming and individual specific preclusions and troll
baiting for once a system is set. I think we can all see the obvious pitfalls
of starting out by the very negative notion of precluding rather than
including. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think registrants are going to have to suck it up on this one for a
while because they are going to have to go by the WHOIS data to begin. We all
know the problems of spoofing there but if that is a barrier to beginning you
will never get it done. In order to ID you are going to have to accept the
longstanding, longsuffering data proof for obtaining a registration. For if you
say you can register a name but cannot be a member of the registrants community
it is a non-starter. You simply cannot fix a moving train without being
on board.<BR><BR>--- On <B>Thu, 5/20/10, Andrew McMeikan
<I><andrewm@xxxxxxxxxxxx></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT:
rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Andrew McMeikan
<andrewm@xxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: Re: [ga] |Going forward towards a
Registrant's Constituency<BR>To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Date: Thursday, May 20,
2010, 5:23 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail><BR><A
href="http://us.mc529.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";
ymailto="mailto:sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>
wrote:<BR>> First, let's thank Joop for offering up the IDNO charter for us
to use as<BR>> a basis for an RC charter.<BR>> <BR>> Next, let's get
one piece of fundamental business out ofthe way. When i<BR>> voted in the
ICANN 2000 AtLarge election, it was only after my identity<BR>> had been
verified and a letter had been sent to my physical address with<BR>> my
acct/password info for voting day. In order for us to move forward on<BR>>
creating an RC we need to VERIFY that the prospective membership is who<BR>>
they say they are. Fortunately, there are many options available for us<BR>>
today. My preference would be for a digital certificate. Does anyone
have<BR>> any problem with being required to provide proof of one's identity
in<BR>> order to participate in a Registrant's Constituency? If anyone does
have a<BR>> problem, the solution is simple, they can form their own
constituency of<BR>> non-identities. I am willing to put the work into an RC
but only with<BR>> other verified individuals. So, who's willing to join me
in this<BR>> endeavour?<BR>> <BR>> Sotiris Sotiropoulos<BR>>
<BR><BR>I support this. What type of digital certificate do you
propose?<BR>As some SSL certificates have been forged perhaps something
simple<BR>like pgp / gpg keys, this is free and easy for everyone, makes
email<BR>voting very simple and makes for a visible web of trust so
the<BR>certification level of everyone can be seen.<BR><BR>
cya,
Andrew...<BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Jeffrey
A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders
and growing, strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom"
-<BR> Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance
of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - Theodore
Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the
burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied
by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll
Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated
1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of<BR>Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Phone:
214-244-4827<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|