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.
>
The primary purpose of the DNSO constituency meetings in Berlin is to
discuss what their membership rules will be. Since membership rules are not
yet in place, they can not be "membership meetings" - there is no
membership. Any restrictions on who can participate in the discussions
would prejudice the outcome.
>
> > 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?
>
ICANN organized the constituency meetings, not you, so the German
authorities would not find it difficult to determine that you are the person
attempting "to take over other people's meetings". Disrupting open meetings
in order to prevent outcomes one opposes is a characteristic tactic of the
political philosophy with which you are trying to associate your opponents,
which more properly applies to you.
