[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: NC-vote

[Harold J. Feld]

When I asked in the Consticuency for input on the respolution, the 
replies I received urged a no vote because we hope to expand the number 
of consticuencies and three reps/consticuency may ultimately become 
unworkable.

I expressed my concern at the NC conference call meeting.  In response, 
Phil Sheppard redrafted, including the final statement that the 
inculsion of more consticuencies might require re-evaluation.

I felt this did not go far enough to address the concerns expressed here 
by the Consticuency, but did attempt to address them and at least raised 
the issue.  I therefore abstained.

Harold

DannyYounger at cs.com wrote:

> Harold,
> 
> Could you perhaps explain your rationale for the decision to abstain on 
> resolution #1?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
>