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

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

No one is badgering anyone here. The voting problem is a productive subject.

The voting mechanism this WG uses appears compromised and phony.

You appear pleased that everything appears to be going your way in this WG,
therefore, you appear to refuse to address the voting problem.  You also appear
to approve that it is productive for this WG to engage secret meetings to
deploy strategy against fellow WG participants.

I do not believe that it is fair to WG participants who spend their time
contributing comments here, that a select group appears to not want to address
the voting problem for their own special interests and, furthermore, appear to
operate in secret.

[MOTION]   that all participants who voted in this WG identify whether they
voted or not.

Derek Conant


Greg Burton wrote:

> At 10:41 AM 1/31/01, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >I would object to this motion. While the electoral register is a matter of
> >public interest, whether or not I voted is a private matter between me and
> >my conscience. Anyway, voted on what? Some people may have voted
> >selectively.
>
> I agree with these statements, completely. It is no one's business how
> anyone else voted, or whether or not they did.
>
> We need to remember WHY we have votes in this WG, which is a widely
> expressed concern about the claims of "consensus" made without
> documentation in prior DNSO activities. If we had been operating under
> other procedures, I could simply have declared, as chair, that we had
> achieved "consensus" on a wide variety of topics. Some people have claimed
> that that has happened before.
>
> We also need to remember why the WG exists. On one level - the chartered
> level - it exists to produce material on DNSO process, procedures, and any
> necessary changes. On another level, the group is a lab for trying to
> determine what works and what doesn't in this process. Despite any concerns
> about the task force report, we need to recognize that the Names Council
> has made an extraordinary effort to allow us to do that.
>
> As has been mentioned here, and yesterday on the General Assembly list,
> off-topic spam and bickering reduce the desire of people to participate. A
> WG is for work. If we want more participation - and we should - then
> badgering people about their personal decisions is counterproductive. It's
> also extremely rude to people who spend their time and effort on
> substantive materials for the group, and to those badgered.
>
> I'm beginning to develop a theory, and I'd like comments on it privately.
> It seems that for some people, the task of battling what they perceive as
> unfair process has become such a habit that when any real reason for that
> goes away they become lost, and look around for something that will allow
> them to continue their habit. For others, arguing about process allows them
> to feel like they're participating even when the topic is one they don't
> understand or have nothing to say about. Yet others are genuinely concerned
> with process, but recognize when and where it's material to the process and
> when it isn't.
>
> In the meantime, I'd request that people let this entire topic drop. We
> should start considering what should be done about the General Assembly,
> hopefully continue discussion on the differing models of constituencies
> that have been presented to us, and addressing topics of a serious nature
> in the task force report.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> sidna@feedwriter.com
>
> --
> 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