The point Michael, was that you presumed to set limits and restrictions when you
had no authority to do so. It is not your position to do so, nor your decision as
to who is welcome and who isn't.
Michael Sondow wrote:
> John B. Reynolds a écrit:
> >
> > You have no more authority to unilaterally set NCDNHC attendance requirements
> > than do your opponents to hold Names Council elections.
>
> It's a standard procedure to require proof of identity at all
> membership meetings, otherwise people who don't belong can disrupt
> or take over the meeting. All organizations I've ever belonged to do
> the same. It's quite normal. What's more, in this particular case
> there are two extra and very good reasons for it: one, the room
> isn't very large, and two, many people who are not non-commercial
> domain name holders are threatening to come and try to take over the
> constituency. Obviously, the non-commercial domain name holders are
> not going to allow them to do this.
>
> > If I were ICANN, I
> > would have hotel security eject you should you attempt to prevent others from
> > entering the meeting room.
>
> Well, as it turns out, Germans are rather sensistive to fascistic
> attempts to take over other people's meetings, so I would tend to
> think that any German authorities would be rather more sympathetic
> to the non-commercial domain name holders than the people crashing
> the meeting. Seems logical, no?
