In message <000101bea45e$139eae00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John B. Reynolds
" writes:
>
>
> 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.
Thanks for explaing what contributors with access think. Great, we
need that!
> 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.
I really find it great, that all the DNSO wars were for nought.
el
