Re: [council] Convention-Style Voting adapted to the DNSO conditions

[Nigel Roberts <nigel@nic.gg>]

Amadeu:

No that is not what I am saying:-

What I am saying is this:

The voting system now proposed was proposed by (if I understand it)
ICANN 
staff during the telcon on Thursday afternoon to which I sent my
apologies. I have not received the minutes of this meeting yet or
notification where they can be read. 

The notification that there was a comment period on whatever proposal
was put forward was only announced  after close of business in Europe
with a deadline for comment before the opening of business in Europe
today giving me no opportunity to know this was happening.

It is not the content of this specific proposal I have a problem with.

It is this lack of proper procedure, which is exacerbated by the
fact that we still haven't yet adopted any standing orders other
than the (IMO) impractical Robert's Rules.

This is a serious problem which needs to be addressed, otherwise anyone
may question the legitimacy of any decisions which are made in this
manner, and none of us want that.

We (ICANN) were supposed to be a bottom-up organisation, yet we seem to 
be acting all the time as if it is organised from the top-down.



Nigel

Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:
> 
> Nigel,
> 
> I wonder why those who are now asking for new extensions (a favoirite
> sport within NC) did not oppose the NC relsolution stating that all
> comments should come on Friday at latest. After that, Elisabeth said
> that it was OK for the d
> secretariat toaccept comments until Sunday. Once again, nobody
> disagreed, even if we had a "previous" commitment to PUBLISH THE
> SYSTEM by last firday.
> 
> And all we get, instead of comments, is people asking for new
> extenisons, ....long aftet all intial deadline expeiired.
> 
> I would be confused, if I wan'tnt that disappointed. And indeed, let
> me reafimr the strongest "no" to any extra delay.
> 
> Amadeu