Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #807
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, October 22 2001           Volume 01 : Number 807

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 21:15:12 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Ballot question

Sunday, Sunday, October 21, 2001, 6:26:02 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> [     ]  Agree
> [   X  ]  Disagree

Marilyn,

Is there any language that can be changed which would bring you closer
to agreement?

It's worth making changes that don't substantively change the intent
if it will mean getting a broader and more substantial level of
consensus.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 21:16:06 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Ballot question

Sunday, Sunday, October 21, 2001, 8:06:48 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 22:17 21/10/01 -0700, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

>>Forget burdening the Secretariat.  On the list, publicly, just as myself, 
>>Marilyn Cade, and Eric Dierker.  Cards on the table folks.

> I respect  those who vote here in plain view of all, but the official vote 
> should be the secret ballot counted by the secretariat.
> Same argument as I used to question Roberto's call of public support for 
> the Chair's appointee:
> Not doing so skews the results.

> P.S. My own vote will be in favour of the reworded motion. (thanks Danny)

When we are talking consensus, the vote should be public, so that we
can see just how close we are to actual consensus, and those who
disagree can say why, so we can see if any changes can be made to
broaden the support.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 21:24:59 -0700
From: "David Hernand" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Ballot question

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 9:15 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Ballot question

In accordance with the rules and procedures of the General Assembly, a
motion
has been put forth, has been seconded, and after discussion has received the
benefit of a friendly amendment.  The Chair has determined that sufficient
consensus exists to move the matter forward to a ballot.  The Secretariat is
instructed to commence a vote of the General Assembly on the following
ballot
question:

Whereas the Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts (adopted
by the ICANN Board March 4, 1999), state that "The ICANN Board should
periodically review the status of the constituency groups to determine
whether all DNSO interests are adequately represented"

Whereas members of the General Assembly have repeatedly expressed their
concern that the DNSO as currently constituted is not sufficiently
representative

Whereas problems outlined by the DNSO Review have not been remedied
internally, and efforts undertaken by the Names Council have failed to
sufficiently address these concerns

It is therefore

RESOLVED that the ICANN Board be advised that:

1.  Members of the General Assembly believe that DNSO dysfunctionality
requires direct ICANN Board intervention

2.  The General Assembly seeks to establish a representative balance by
being
placed on equal footing with the current DNSO Names Council and creating a
bicameral DNSO.

3.  The General Assembly seeks initial budgetary/Secretariat support for the
DNSO/GA to perform its functions.

4.  The General Assembly will work with ICANN to develop an appropriate
funding model to support its activities.

5.  The General Assembly seeks representation on the ICANN Board (to be
filled by a representative voting the recorded consensus of the DNSO/GA)

6.  The General Assembly seeks to have both an Advocate and a Consensus
Leader, both elected positions of the DNSO/GA with budgetary control and
responsibility for all DNSO/GA staff.

7. The General Assembly re-affirms the GA's commitment to the DNSO as
originally envisaged as a place for cross-constituency dialogue and
consensus building, and requests the Board to fulfil its obligation to
facilitate the entry of thus far unrepresented constituencies.

[  X   ]  Agree
[     ]  Disagree
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 00:53:38 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Ballot question

i have no problem with a public vote, which is why I voted, publically.  But
there are many who may prefer a secret ballot.  How do we address that? 

And, we need to note whether the majority of the GA members vote. If we find
that we have a situation where a small portion of the members vote, we need
to consider why that is.  We can't declare a consensus if the majority of
the GA choses not to vote.  

I know, I know. I'll get flamed for this opinion, but staying away doesn't
equate to consent.  If a very small portion of the GA votes, we need to
acknowledge that and think about how we ask them why that is. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:16 AM
To: Joop Teernstra
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Ballot question

Sunday, Sunday, October 21, 2001, 8:06:48 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 22:17 21/10/01 -0700, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

>>Forget burdening the Secretariat.  On the list, publicly, just as myself, 
>>Marilyn Cade, and Eric Dierker.  Cards on the table folks.

> I respect  those who vote here in plain view of all, but the official vote

> should be the secret ballot counted by the secretariat.
> Same argument as I used to question Roberto's call of public support for 
> the Chair's appointee:
> Not doing so skews the results.

> P.S. My own vote will be in favour of the reworded motion. (thanks Danny)

When we are talking consensus, the vote should be public, so that we
can see just how close we are to actual consensus, and those who
disagree can say why, so we can see if any changes can be made to
broaden the support.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 18:06:31 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce

On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 11:57:43 +1300, Joop Teernstra
<[email-masked]> wrote:
>At 21:30 21/10/01 +1300, DPF wrote:

>The ICANN staff may be happy with the abolition of the DNSO just before it 
>finally reforms itself  into a meaningful Support Organization that the 
>Board will actually listen to, but for others it will reek of a 
>just-in-time Bylaw rewriting to thwart stakeholder democracy once again.

It would be nice to think that the Board will start listening to the
DNSO one day. 

>If I were you, as an appointee of the Chair and not an elected 
>representative, I would go very slow on pushing any particular p.o.v., 
>except one of an emerging consensus.

My position is that regardless of whether one is an elected or
appointed rep, your duty is to promote the consensus position of those
you represent rather than one's personal point of view.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 00:10:53 -0700
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> i have no problem with a public vote, which is why I voted, publically.  But
> there are many who may prefer a secret ballot.  How do we address that?

Absolutely agreed.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:11:52 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Ballot question

Sunday, Sunday, October 21, 2001, 9:53:38 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> i have no problem with a public vote, which is why I voted, publically.  But
> there are many who may prefer a secret ballot.  How do we address that? 

> And, we need to note whether the majority of the GA members vote. If we find
> that we have a situation where a small portion of the members vote, we need
> to consider why that is.  We can't declare a consensus if the majority of
> the GA choses not to vote.  

> I know, I know. I'll get flamed for this opinion, but staying away doesn't
> equate to consent.  If a very small portion of the GA votes, we need to
> acknowledge that and think about how we ask them why that is. 

If they don't speak up, then they can't be taken into account at all,
for the purposes of determining the current consensus they must be
treated as if they don't exist.

It is their responsibility to speak up if they wish their input to be
considered.  If they don't speak up, then they should not be taken
into account positively or negatively, and the only way to do that is
to treat them as non-existent unless the speak up.

That is the fairest way of determining consensus. Otherwise, even if
all the active members are unanimous, the vastly silent majority would
prevent any forward movement.  To be considered, you MUST speak up and
be heard.

If the active members develop a consensus, then it is the consensus of
the GA, since consensus can only be determined by participation.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 00:15:50 -0700
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

> When we are talking consensus, the vote should be public, so that we
> can see just how close we are to actual consensus,

Count the votes.

> and those who
> disagree can say why,

That is always possible with a secret ballot.

> so we can see if any changes can be made to
> broaden the support.

That should occur in the drafting phase (motions and amendments) and in the
discussion period.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:34:48 -0700
From: "Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc." <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Ballot question

Dear Marilyn

Early this month we were faced with a similar ballot & voting problem at
AINC.

Mr. Joop Teernstra facilitated for us to do an online voting that was
excellent and very secured as far as all of AINC members concerned.

Why not ask Joop to do the same for the GA?

Regards,

Asaad Y. Alnajjar, P.E.
CEO Millennium Inc.
Exec. Director AINC

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
To: "'William X Walsh'" <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 9:53 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Ballot question

> i have no problem with a public vote, which is why I voted, publically.
But
> there are many who may prefer a secret ballot.  How do we address that?
>
> And, we need to note whether the majority of the GA members vote. If we
find
> that we have a situation where a small portion of the members vote, we
need
> to consider why that is.  We can't declare a consensus if the majority of
> the GA choses not to vote.
>
> I know, I know. I'll get flamed for this opinion, but staying away doesn't
> equate to consent.  If a very small portion of the GA votes, we need to
> acknowledge that and think about how we ask them why that is.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:16 AM
> To: Joop Teernstra
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Ballot question
>
>
> Sunday, Sunday, October 21, 2001, 8:06:48 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 22:17 21/10/01 -0700, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> >>Forget burdening the Secretariat.  On the list, publicly, just as
myself,
> >>Marilyn Cade, and Eric Dierker.  Cards on the table folks.
>
> > I respect  those who vote here in plain view of all, but the official
vote
>
> > should be the secret ballot counted by the secretariat.
> > Same argument as I used to question Roberto's call of public support for
> > the Chair's appointee:
> > Not doing so skews the results.
>
> > P.S. My own vote will be in favour of the reworded motion. (thanks
Danny)
>
> When we are talking consensus, the vote should be public, so that we
> can see just how close we are to actual consensus, and those who
> disagree can say why, so we can see if any changes can be made to
> broaden the support.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 01:43:16 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Ballot question

I agree that Joop's online voting booth has proved helpful in the past. I
leave it up to others about whether a ballot is needed... I've already voted
publically...  but note again that others may prefer a secret ballot. 

But I leave this up to the Chair and others to determine. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc. [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 1:35 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'William X Walsh'; Joop Teernstra
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Ballot question

Dear Marilyn

Early this month we were faced with a similar ballot & voting problem at
AINC.

Mr. Joop Teernstra facilitated for us to do an online voting that was
excellent and very secured as far as all of AINC members concerned.

Why not ask Joop to do the same for the GA?

Regards,

Asaad Y. Alnajjar, P.E.
CEO Millennium Inc.
Exec. Director AINC

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
To: "'William X Walsh'" <[email-masked]>; "Joop Teernstra"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 9:53 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Ballot question

> i have no problem with a public vote, which is why I voted, publically.
But
> there are many who may prefer a secret ballot.  How do we address that?
>
> And, we need to note whether the majority of the GA members vote. If we
find
> that we have a situation where a small portion of the members vote, we
need
> to consider why that is.  We can't declare a consensus if the majority of
> the GA choses not to vote.
>
> I know, I know. I'll get flamed for this opinion, but staying away doesn't
> equate to consent.  If a very small portion of the GA votes, we need to
> acknowledge that and think about how we ask them why that is.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:16 AM
> To: Joop Teernstra
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Ballot question
>
>
> Sunday, Sunday, October 21, 2001, 8:06:48 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 22:17 21/10/01 -0700, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> >>Forget burdening the Secretariat.  On the list, publicly, just as
myself,
> >>Marilyn Cade, and Eric Dierker.  Cards on the table folks.
>
> > I respect  those who vote here in plain view of all, but the official
vote
>
> > should be the secret ballot counted by the secretariat.
> > Same argument as I used to question Roberto's call of public support for
> > the Chair's appointee:
> > Not doing so skews the results.
>
> > P.S. My own vote will be in favour of the reworded motion. (thanks
Danny)
>
> When we are talking consensus, the vote should be public, so that we
> can see just how close we are to actual consensus, and those who
> disagree can say why, so we can see if any changes can be made to
> broaden the support.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:13:39 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Ballot question

Sunday, Sunday, October 21, 2001, 10:34:48 PM, Asaad Y. Alnajjar - Millennium Inc. wrote:

> Dear Marilyn

> Early this month we were faced with a similar ballot & voting problem at
> AINC.

> Mr. Joop Teernstra facilitated for us to do an online voting that was
> excellent and very secured as far as all of AINC members concerned.

> Why not ask Joop to do the same for the GA?

As for voting method, the DNSO already has a voting system that is
more advanced and secure than the web based on that is in place at
Joop's site.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: technizmo <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] Ballot question

- --- "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> but note again that others may prefer
> a secret ballot. 

An important component of consensus building is the
resolution of the concerns of dissenters, in order to
arrive at an agreed upon conclusion.  If those
concerns are not made public, they cannot be resolved.

A secret ballot is  a welcome method when an
independent choice is to be made, such as in the case
of an election, because a common agreement is not
expected to be reached.  However, in the case of
cooperative solution building, as consensus requires,
a secret ballot obstructs the public elucidation of
dissenting concerns.  It makes it far too easy to
stall the consensus process by dissenting in a vote,
without expaining why.

Public dissension with reason is a positive and
necessary part of the journey towards common
agreement, while dissension without explanation or
identification can only stifle it.

Oh,  I almost forgot.... I

[ X ] Agree
[   ] Disagree

with the amended motion put forth by Roeland Meyer.

Sincerely,
Jason Graff

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 01:31:22 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

Roeland and all assembly members,

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> It's a little irregular but, here's my half-nickle.
>
> Someone please refresh me on what happened to the regular voting mechanism?

  It is still there Roeland.  We just need to wait/get the secretariat
to generate a ballot as Danny has requested...

>
>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> |> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 9:15 AM
> |> To: [email-masked]
> |> Cc: [email-masked]
> |> Subject: [ga] Ballot question
> |>
> |>
> |> In accordance with the rules and procedures of the General
> |> Assembly, a motion
> |> has been put forth, has been seconded, and after discussion
> |> has received the
> |> benefit of a friendly amendment.  The Chair has determined
> |> that sufficient
> |> consensus exists to move the matter forward to a ballot.
> |> The Secretariat is
> |> instructed to commence a vote of the General Assembly on the
> |> following ballot
> |> question:
> |>
> |>
> |> Whereas the Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation
> |> Concepts (adopted
> |> by the ICANN Board March 4, 1999), state that "The ICANN
> |> Board should
> |> periodically review the status of the constituency groups to
> |> determine
> |> whether all DNSO interests are adequately represented"
> |>
> |> Whereas members of the General Assembly have repeatedly
> |> expressed their
> |> concern that the DNSO as currently constituted is not sufficiently
> |> representative
> |>
> |> Whereas problems outlined by the DNSO Review have not been remedied
> |> internally, and efforts undertaken by the Names Council have
> |> failed to
> |> sufficiently address these concerns
> |>
> |> It is therefore
> |>
> |> RESOLVED that the ICANN Board be advised that:
> |>
> |> 1.  Members of the General Assembly believe that DNSO
> |> dysfunctionality
> |> requires direct ICANN Board intervention
> |>
> |> 2.  The General Assembly seeks to establish a representative
> |> balance by being
> |> placed on equal footing with the current DNSO Names Council
> |> and creating a
> |> bicameral DNSO.
> |>
> |> 3.  The General Assembly seeks initial budgetary/Secretariat
> |> support for the
> |> DNSO/GA to perform its functions.
> |>
> |> 4.  The General Assembly will work with ICANN to develop an
> |> appropriate
> |> funding model to support its activities.
> |>
> |> 5.  The General Assembly seeks representation on the ICANN
> |> Board (to be
> |> filled by a representative voting the recorded consensus of
> |> the DNSO/GA)
> |>
> |> 6.  The General Assembly seeks to have both an Advocate and
> |> a Consensus
> |> Leader, both elected positions of the DNSO/GA with budgetary
> |> control and
> |> responsibility for all DNSO/GA staff.
> |>
> |> 7. The General Assembly re-affirms the GA's commitment to
> |> the DNSO as
> |> originally envisaged as a place for cross-constituency dialogue and
> |> consensus building, and requests the Board to fulfil its
> |> obligation to
> |> facilitate the entry of thus far unrepresented constituencies.
> |>
> |> [ X  ]  Agree
> |> [    ]  Disagree
> |> --
> |> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> |> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> |> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> |> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> |>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 01:40:25 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

Marilyn and all assembly members,

  Well Marilyn, as I know that you are not this stupid.  I have to ask
myself and I am sure others are also wondering as well.  Why is it that
you consistently are trying to pretend to be stupid?  And, why is it that
you seem to find anyway possible to encourage disruption, all be it in
a somewhat straight forward manner?

  You know very well what the voting mechanism is.  It is posted
clearly on the DNSO GA Web site.  Read it!  You also know
very well that any participating DNSO GA member on the
DNSO Announce list of the GA list may register to vote in the
DNSO GA.  But it is not a requirement.  As such, you also
know that even when a participant on the DNSO that is
registered to vote they are not compelled to do so, and as such
the plurality or lack there of is not included in how a consensus
is measured.

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> i have no problem with a public vote, which is why I voted, publically.  But
> there are many who may prefer a secret ballot.  How do we address that?
>
> And, we need to note whether the majority of the GA members vote. If we find
> that we have a situation where a small portion of the members vote, we need
> to consider why that is.  We can't declare a consensus if the majority of
> the GA choses not to vote.
>
> I know, I know. I'll get flamed for this opinion, but staying away doesn't
> equate to consent.  If a very small portion of the GA votes, we need to
> acknowledge that and think about how we ask them why that is.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 12:16 AM
> To: Joop Teernstra
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Ballot question
>
> Sunday, Sunday, October 21, 2001, 8:06:48 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > At 22:17 21/10/01 -0700, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
> >>Forget burdening the Secretariat.  On the list, publicly, just as myself,
> >>Marilyn Cade, and Eric Dierker.  Cards on the table folks.
>
> > I respect  those who vote here in plain view of all, but the official vote
>
> > should be the secret ballot counted by the secretariat.
> > Same argument as I used to question Roberto's call of public support for
> > the Chair's appointee:
> > Not doing so skews the results.
>
> > P.S. My own vote will be in favour of the reworded motion. (thanks Danny)
>
> When we are talking consensus, the vote should be public, so that we
> can see just how close we are to actual consensus, and those who
> disagree can say why, so we can see if any changes can be made to
> broaden the support.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:53:43 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

Marilyn,

Assuming we are not in a strict sense voting in an elective way but
voting to
help bring about a determination of consensus, diversion and the reasons
therefor;

Why do you disagree with the motion?

Thank you for your participation.

Eric
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 23:57:54 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Ballot question

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:
<snip>

> We can't declare a consensus if the majority of
> the GA choses not to vote.
>
> I know, I know. I'll get flamed for this opinion, but staying away doesn't
> equate to consent.  If a very small portion of the GA votes, we need to
> acknowledge that and think about how we ask them why that is.
> <snip>

Accepting your logic here,  then all the BoD and Staff have to do is drive
people away so there is no large participation and then they can revert to your
logic and do anything they want because there is no consensus because the
majority did not vote.  Is the US an illegitimate government because the
majority do not vote?

I have been working in outreach for too long not to know that we have lost more
participants due censorship and improprieties of the staff than any other
reasons.

You should get flamed for this, gone over one hundred million times
totalitaranistic derisive comment.
Just think about it.  By holding this position you disempower those who do
participate thereby causing less to participate.  Very few thoughts can be
poison but this one comes the closest.

But you knew that and still posted it ;>}

Eric

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #807
************************