Re: [council] Election No. 3 - Explanation and Proposed Action.

[Nigel Roberts <nigel@nic.gg>]

I also object.

I agree about the seriousness of the problem.

I feel the problem -- and equally importantly what it has highlighted -- is so
serious that "unless anyone objects there is a consensus" will not be not
sufficient.

As a trained election agent for parliamentary General Elections I will be
posting a considered position on this problem and on the conduct of the whole
election process before Monday.

I do not believe I exaggerate when I say that I feel that the way we handle this
will determine whether or not the Names Council and ICANN/DNSO continue to hold
public support in the Internet community.


Nigel Roberts



Michael Schneider wrote:

> At 17:00 16.10.99 -0300, Raul  Echeberria wrote:
>
> >Mmmm. I think this is not you responsability as a Teleconference chairman.
> >This problem is so serious.
> >I think all of us have to decide it. If there isn't objections during today
> >and tomorrow I believe that it's a consensous.
>
> I object, unless someone explains in more detail what it means that "the
> voter's intent was clear, that the voter's intended vote was miscounted
> (due to a subsequent vote, made in error), and that the miscount was not
> entirely the fault of the voter". I don't understand the concept of a
> "shared fault" and that is what the words "not entirely" suggest.
>
> M.S.