[council] Re: motion to waive rules

["J.Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>]

All:

I agree with Marilyn.  Given the potential for fraud, I think it is 
important that NC votes are ratified in person or via a telephone 
conference.  I am willing to share the burden by attending some calls 
outside of US business hours to accommosate our friends from other 
hemispheres. 

J. Scott Evans 

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA writes: 

> We can add this issue to our discussion about rules, etc. in the NC, per my
> suggested motion.  
> 
> I personally am even more convinced that we should maintain the ratification
> AND discussion in a personal contact and given the few votes of this nature
> we need to take, I don't believe that an occasional extra conf. call is a
> big burden... we can try as much as possible to limit votes to the regular
> calls. Isn't that the usual practice on our part? 
> 
> MC 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 7:06 PM
> To: council@dnso.org; DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org;
> Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com
> Cc: touton@icann.org
> Subject: RE: [council] motion to waive rules 
> 
> 
> I (sort of) agree with Bruce, but would point out that
> the problem is in the ICANN by-laws, not in our own
> DNSO rules, so any change involves the ICANN Board,
> not us. 
> 
>>>> Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> 02/07/02 05:23PM >>>
> Hello All, 
> 
>> That is fine with me, but I think in the future that the NC 
>> should look at
>> their rules and allow for these sort of email votes without 
>> necessarily
>> having to have NC calls (except perhaps in the case of actual 
>> elections)
>