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

[Derek Conant - DNSGA <dconant@dnsga.org>]

I don't think I am pushing this matter too far at all.

I wonder why the voters here cannot identify that they voted.  Especially those
participants who appear pleased that this WG appears to be going their way.  This WG
is appearing very phony.  How could anyone take this WG seriously?

This WG is discussing what some believe are serious matters regarding the future of
the Internet.  And, this WG is blowing it big time by not counting and
authenticating the votes it relies upon for direction.

This WG appears to be part of a very bad joke and a lot of wasted energy playing
into the hands of ICANN's bad policy.

I suggest that this WG spend a few minute and fix its voting authentication problem,
of which it relies on for direction, before moving forward.

Derek Conant


Eric Dierker wrote:

> Derek,
>
> I think you are pushing this to an extreme not appropriate to  working group.
> Maybe we should go back to the procedures and notice that we focus on an issue
> and not the person suggesting it.  Look at yesterday, Karl went ahead and agreed
> with Kent on a derisive issue and we moved forward.  Who said or voted for what,
> loses importance in a working group or it takes over a working group.  The good
> part of Consensus is that it should be personalityless.(comments only regarding
> WGs)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Derek Conant - DNSGA wrote:
>
> > I believe that this WG should know who voted here.
> >
> > I do not see anywhere near the 25 votes represented during the voting
> > process for this WG.  And, I disagree with certain of this WG current
> > direction and certain contents described in the draft RTF Report.
> >
> > The current participants of this WG represent the foundation and integrity
> > of the development, direction and advancement of this WG.  An open and
> > transparent entity should have an interest in making reasonably certain that
> > its direction has not been, or is not being, compromised.
> >
> > I count 5 votes!  Where did the other 20 votes come from?
> >
> > *   Mr. Stubbs indicated that he did not vote.
> > *   bukko bukko@od2.com indicated that he did not vote.
> > *   Eric eric@springbreaktravel.com  did not vote.
> > *   I did not vote.
> >
> > *   Mr. Eric Dierker indicated that he voted.
> > *   Mr. Rob Juneau indicated that he voted.
> > *   Mr. Phil King indicated that he voted.
> > *   Mr. Forrester Rupp indicated that he voted.
> > *   Mr. Sotiris Sotiropoulos indicated that he voted.
> >
> > Did  Mr. Karl Auerbach vote?
> > Did  Mr. Michael Bracker vote?
> > Did  Mr. Greg Burton vote?
> > Did  Mr. Kent Crispin vote?
> > Did  Mr. Peter de Blanc vote?
> > Did  Ms. Joanna Lane vote?
> > Did  Mr. Darryl (Dassa) Lynch vote?
> > Did  Mr. Roeland Meyer vote?
> > Did  Ms. Erica Roberts vote?
> > Did  Mr. Miles Whitener vote?
> > Did  Ms. YJ Park vote?
> >
> > Did I miss anyone?  Who else in this WG voted, or did not vote?
> >
> > Derek Conant
> >
> > Roeland Meyer wrote:
> >
> > > We have plenty of issue before us, that are more pertinent to our focus.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Derek Conant - DNSGA [mailto:dconant@dnsga.org]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 8:35 AM
> > > > To: Joop Teernstra
> > > > Cc: sotiris@hermesnetwork.com; wg-review@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [wg-review] Voters should indicate they voted!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, did you vote?
> > > >
> > > > Derek Conant
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > At 00:39 31/01/01 -0500, Derek Conant - DNSGA wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> >Is there any reason why all of the participants in this
> > > > WG cannot
> > > > > >> >identify whether they voted or not?  This WG is small
> > > > enough that the
> > > > > >> >participants here could indicate if they voted or not.
> > > > In such a small
> > > > > >> >WG as this, I do not see any problem with voters
> > > > indicating whether they
> > > > > >> >voted or not.  However, voters should not be obligated
> > > > to indicate how
> > > > > >> >they voted.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > >
> > > > > For future votes, it is perfectly possible for all voters
> > > > to indicate THAT
> > > > > they voted, without indicating how they voted.
> > > > > All they need to do is enter their name on the comment line.
> > > > >
> > > > > The list of names will appear in the results under "comments".
> > > > >
> > > > > Whether the listmembers will want this, is another question.
> > > > > First, a motion has to made to the Chair and if the motion
> > > > is opposed, the
> > > > > issue would have to be voted on.
> > > > >
> > > > > --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
> > > > > the Cyberspace Association and
> > > > > the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> > > > > Elected representative.
> > > > > http://www.idno.org
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > > > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > > > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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