Re: [atlarge-discuss] Point of personal privilege -- I'm beingdisenfranchised by glitches in the system!

[eric@hi-tek.com]

In her one voice of a problem she has voted many times over.
And just look at the excellent professional responses.
In that I am a candidate, I was not going to vote as I have some ethical problem in
that regard.
If the nice lady will send me her choices they will be voted as though my own.
Here is an unorthodox method to route around the problem.
We must all remember that Rules and the Internet are our servants, but we must remain
our sisters servants.

Please all of you, (except for KC) vote and vote often.

Sincerely,
Eric

Izumi AIZU wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I kind of agree with Norbert that there could have been some solution for Judyth.
>
> But given the tight deadline situation it seems there is little room for
> pragmatic
> solution to give her a ballot.
>
> I was quite annoyed when the ICANN staff "destroyed" all the record
> of the first election right after they confirmed the result. It did ignore so
> many people's good intentions, and resulted in a waste of resources.
> That led the debate about the cost of running another election, and
> the fee issues since the first round was free of charge which I advocated
> very strongly.
>
> But that is not recoverable once trashed. A big mistake indeed.
>
> As one of the members of the interim panel, I would like to express my
> personal apology to her - yes, we should have taken this kind of confusion
> into consideration before organizing the election and made clear how
> people could become eligible to vote.
>
> So sorry about this,
>
> izumi
>
> At 08:53 02/08/04 +0200, nhklein@gmx.net wrote:
> > > At 11:48 PM 03/08/02 -0400, espresso@e-scape.net wrote:
> > >
> > > >However, I went through my archives and dug out the original messages
> > > from
> > > >ICANN which confirm my status as a member, assuming that these would be
> > > >sufficient for the Powers That Be to look into the matter and perhaps
> > > even
> > > >send me a ballot in time.
> > >
> > > That means you are a member (or at least could vote)
> > > in the ICANN at Large elections which elected Karl
> > > Auerbach and others. That does not mean that you are
> > > automatically a member of the icannatlarge.com which
> > > was begun subsequent to the subsequent Atlarge study.
> > > Although that is an interesting point.
> >
> >I think this is not only an interesting, but also a very important point:
> >probably a point where lagalities and common sense are in conflict.
> >
> >Is it not natural that a person who registered for the only open "ICANN
> >At-Large" elections thinks to be also authorized to vote in the "icannatlarge"
> >elections - in our organization that was created to take up the history which
> >the ICANN board wants to cut?
> >
> >If we have any common sense flexibility (concerned with content and not only
> >with formalities) in our organization, I would hope that the election
> >watchdogs and the people elected ad interim could find a solution.
> >
> >Or at least an apology that we did not think about the implications of the
> >membership in the "ICANN At-Large" for the membership in our "ICANNATLARGE."
> >
> >Norbert
> >
> >--
> >Norbert Klein
> >Open Forum of Cambodia: www.forum.org.kh
> >
> >Support democratic control of the Internet!
> >Go to http://www.icannatlarge.com and Join ICANN At Large!
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> >For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de