Re: ISSUE - Okay, Let's Delegate Ourselves - [wg-review] Re: Voters should indicate t hey voted!

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

The issue is that the RTF are making recommendations that are based upon this WG
poles and votes. The WG has disassociated itself with certain WG participant
ideas and viewpoints because of the current WG pole and voting process.  I am
asking for the poles to show legitimacy by voters being identified.  This way we
will all know that the votes in the poles are legitimate.

At this point, certain votes that were counted in the WG poles do not appear
legitimate.  Putting that aside, I am asking that we put into place a fair and
working system that can be used beyond the initial RTF Report process.

We should not use the excuse that we have a RTF Report deadline to sidestep the
voting problem this WG uses for its direction.

The RTF Report final product should at least show that we solved the voting
matter and set an example of good policy within the WG itself.

Derek Conant


bukko wrote:

> No.
> Maybe I don't fully understand the issue, but I don't really see there is a
> problem.
>
> bukko
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Derek Conant - DNSGA
> Sent: 01 February 2001 17:30
> To: Digitel - Ken Stubbs
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: Okay, Let's Delegate Ourselves - [wg-review] Re: Voters
> should indicate t hey voted!
>
> As you are aware Ken, I am involved in all aspects of the Internet (ISP, Web
> Hosting, Domain Registrar, Merchant Services, e-Commerce, network and
> investment consultation, the works with global networks Worldwide).
>
> I have not asked anyone here to submit their qualifications regarding their
> participation in this WG.
>
> I represent no special interest concerning the ICANN/DNSO other than my own
> belief and work and, furthermore, I have not stated anything to this WG that
> would not benefit the advancement of this WG.
>
> The WG voting problem is a real problem and easy to fix.  You cannot deny
> that
> it is not a fundamental problem with this WG.  The ICANN/DNSO appears that
> it
> would rather see the WG move forward with a flawed polling or voting system
> and mechanism for its direction and decisions than fix it.
>
> The ICANN and the DNSO/WG is vulnerable with a flawed voting process and
> mechanism it uses for its direction and decisions.  I do not see the point
> in
> participating in and relying on a flawed process.  That is what we are all
> here to fix.
>
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg02409.html
>
> Do you see anything wrong in quickly addressing the voting matter here?
>
> Does anyone in this WG agree that this WG should quickly address and fix its
> voting process?
>
> Yes or No?
>
> Derek Conant
>
> Digitel - Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
> > maybe you might let all these people know that you were involved as a
> > general manager of a domain registrar firm derek...
> >
> > it might be a good idea for you to declare your "interests" to this list
> >
> > ken stubbs
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Derek Conant - DNSGA" <dconant@dnsga.org>
> > To: "Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> > Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 12:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: Delegate Ourselves - [wg-review] Re: Voters should indicate t
> > hey voted!
> >
> > >
> > > I represent no special interest concerning the ICANN/DNSO other than my
> > own belief and work.  Would you
> > > rather no one speak up here and watch DoC/ICANN run everyone over?
>
> --
> 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