Re: [wg-c] consensus call results

[Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com>]

At 12:48 PM -0500 12/20/99, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>I think that it's a *terrible* mistake to try to decide
>procedural issues while the outcome of a substantive
>poll hangs in the balance.  Fewer than two-thirds of
>votes actually cast on this question are in the
>affirmative.  If the majority (but less than 2/3 majority)
>intend to cram the vote down ICANN's throat, all
>that will be accomplished is to move the subject of
>the debate from the substantive question to the
><ultimately silly> question of whether there were
>enough votes to constitute a rough consensus.
>
>Neither do I think it was inadvertent that mention
>of the number of explicit abstention votes was omitted.
>In other words, the process itself is being gamed, and
>the first victim in the gaming is the open and transparent
>governance system which ICANN is mandated to
>implement.
>
>Kevin J. Connolly
>
>But  . . . I'm also convinced that the majority will
>proceed irrespective of the voices in the wings which
>continue to suggest that the process is proceeding
>toward the pre-ordained conclusion, without benefit
>of thought.

Interesting being on the "other side" for once, eh?