Michael Sondow wrote:
>
> Esther Dyson a �crit:
> >
> > 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.
