[ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN committee recommends voting restrictions,fewer At-Large di rectors

[Adam Peake]

Let's be careful here.

Members present in Yokohama voted for the resolution.  Did we hold an 
online vote of the constituency after Yokohama?  Even if we did hold 
an online vote (really, did we?) the result can be a position of the 
constituency without being consensus.

Note, I am in favor of the nine/nine division, I voted as such in 
Yokohama, I just don't want to hear a repeat of the post Yokohama 
discussion on our internal process: please!

Thanks,

Adam



>Dear Alejandro Pisanty and others,
>
>On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Alejandro Pisanty - CUAED y FQ, UNAM wrote:
>
>>  As for consensus in the constituency I beg to differ. This has been a
>>  divisive issue here and approached with more preestablished views than
>>  reasoning up to now.
>
>Fact is fact. Please refer to "Resolution on By-Law changes on board
>elections" which was adopted in Yokohama. 
>(http://ncdnhc.icann-ncc.org/docs/resolution/bylaw.html) If you don't
>acknowledge this consensus, what should be the base for our discussion?
>What's constituency? If we want to make more constructive discussion, we
>should respect for our past decisions. Of course, there could be always
>different ideas among people. However, consensus is consensus and personal
>idea is personal idea.
>
>
>>  As a final note, may I remark that I hope the constituency, which has been
>>  reduced to a third by the magic wand of changing the list to a new server,
>>  can discuss this issue *and* the .org which was supposed to be closest to
>>  our hearts not so long ago. Which maybe defies explanation and maybe not.
>
>Alejandro, it is not magic. It was decided by members. Due to the
>protection of privacy, many members refused automatic registration to the
>discussion list, so voluntary registration was chosen. And we don't know
>how many people have left from this list in the transition process because
>we didn't know the exact subscribers' list of the old list - I requested
>to get it many times, it was not realised.
>Anyway, your suggestion is good, I also agree to focus those two issues.
>
>
>
>Chun Eung Hwi
>------------------------------------------------------------
>Chun Eung Hwi
>General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2- 583-3033
>Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
>Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   ehchun at peacenet.or.kr  
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss