Fwd: [wg-review] Voters should indicate they voted!

[FRupp@aol.com]

---

• To: rmeyer@mhsc.com
• Subject: Re: [wg-review] Voters should indicate they voted!
• From: FRupp@aol.com
• Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:17:09 EST
• Full-name: FRupp

In a message dated 1/31/01 10:31:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, rmeyer@mhsc.com
writes:

I would almost agree, but we are talking about opinion polls here. Let's not
elevate them to the level of "votes". Also, none of us have been elected to
this WG, therefore, we don't have the personal transparency requirement,
IMHO, that the ICANN BoD has.

I agree the that ICANN BoD has a higher requirement for personal transparency
.

But,

Won't the Review TF represent our Opinion Polls as Concensus, and in effect,
represent the results of an election? and since the polling involves such
limited numbers participating, the infiltration of the group by those (with
agendas) could cause the process to be suspect of impropriety and/or lacking
in (unbiased) participation.

Complete transparency by Our wg Participants would strengthen the publics
perception and (trust) of our process...

The down-side to such lists, as I have seen in other efforts, is that they
are used as target acquisition lists by witch-hunters and spamsters, of
various flavors. This is especially pertinent since the identifier is the
voters email address. Be careful of what you ask for, you might not get what
you expect.

I hear what you are saying ....but that appears (to me) to be expected (as
the price of admission) to be taken at your word.

and re:
"Be careful of what you ask for, you might not get what
you expect."

Oh so true....:)

Forrester Rupp
FRupp@aol.com

---