Re[6]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Marilyn,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 4:02:48 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Thanks, William. But, actually, not very many people voted, did they?  I
> know that timing is a problem.  Given how many folks are signed up for the
> GA, can we say that there is consensus?  I know, some think that failure to
> vote, means agreement.

No, the failure to vote means that they have consented to not being
taken into account, and it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever that
should be taken into account.

It's a tactic agreement with whatever the result is, since by not
participating they have voluntarily given up their right to object to
it being the consensus.

The actual number participating is really not that important, except
to those who oppose the consensus and want to make it appear
illegitimate.

I saw Chuck make that argument in a half-way fashion as well.  I found
it kind of amusing, since I could tell it goes against his personal
grain to make such an argument, but in his role as a representative of
Verisign, he had to make it (not to mention that this agreement will
almost certainly make his stock options worth a lot more).

One cannot claim that because people were silent that the consensus is
invalid.

If they were silent, they were silent by their own choice. Either they
didn't want their opinion taken into account, they had no opinion, or
they saw that there was already sufficient support for their position
and saw no reason to enter the fray.

Those are the only reasonable and legitimate conclusions that can be
drawn from the level of non-participation.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


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