From: Eric Dierker
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: Inconsistency with ALSC recommendations
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 18:57:46 -0700
Post a Message
This is what we in the USA call spin doctoring. You are not good at it and
should hire someone from Hollywood to write you fictional material.
1. Discussion by board; Who cares as it was not public and shame on you for
2. Workability; It is a total bullshit phrase and you know it and so do we,
perhaps you should get a grip and realize you are dealing here with the top five
percent educated people in the world.
3. Expense; the BoD and Staff remuneration is all that need be said about
expense. Plus any able thinking creature would have factored these costs into
the contracts with Verisign and Afilias. So I call you a liar on this point.
4. ALSO; Funny, who determined it would be a Support Org.? Look at your
structure sheet. You are cheating and not very well.
5. Look at this;
""Presumably, the ALSO and its election committee, when established,
will revisit this type of tradeoff in light of the procedures it
chooses to adopt and the related budget considerations. The ALSC
recommendation for a regionally based ALSO will also assist in
dealing with this issue.""?
Mike, Grow up, even if you get away with this, there are people like Danny and I
that will continue the cause. Sooner or later we will get back every penny you
have received through these illegal schemes and lies that are outright.
Mike Roberts wrote:
> As a matter of history, I'd like to comment that this topic was the
> subject of a good deal of discussion by Board members and others in
> the process of adopting the election rules and related Bylaw language
> for the 2000 election.
> The conclusion was based on notions of fairness balanced against
> workability. The basic rule is that the purposes of geographic
> diversity are best served by having candidates be required to be
> citizens of a country within a defined region. Since the number of
> candidates is small, the process of verifying statements of
> citizenship by examining credentials in the event of any question is
> manageable by the election committee volunteers.
> On the other hand, examining citizenship credentials for a worldwide
> electorate that could be very large is potentially an expensive and
> time consuming process. Neither the time nor the money was
> available in the 2000 election to undertake such a verification. The
> decision made in 2000 was that in any given country, the number of
> potential voters who were residents but not citizens was such a small
> proportion of the total that it would not likely affect the outcome
> of the vote. Therefore, the postal mail distribution of pins
> required for authentication would also establish residency to a
> reasonable degree of accuracy and the procedure was adopted.
> Presumably, the ALSO and its election committee, when established,
> will revisit this type of tradeoff in light of the procedures it
> chooses to adopt and the related budget considerations. The ALSC
> recommendation for a regionally based ALSO will also assist in
> dealing with this issue.
> - Mike
> At 14:02 -0400 10/24/01, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >The region for which an ICANN Board candidate may stand is determined by
> >citizenship of the individual, whereas the electorate for each At Large
> >region is determined by residency of the individual.
> >Problem: Vast numbers of the world's population hold citizenship for one
> >region while residing in another. Under the current Bylaws, this means that
> >an individual domain name holder is not eligible to vote in the same region
> >for which they may stand for election.
> >Comments from the ALSC please?