[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [council] Post-election steps

Let's get the results in ASAP and work the verification in parallel.  It's
the only pragmatic solution to the schedule bottleneck. don

-----Original Message-----
From:	Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@dninet.net]
Sent:	Wednesday, October 20, 1999 10:20 PM
To:	Richard Lindsay; council@dnso.org
Cc:	mclaughlin@pobox.com; apisan@servidor.unam.mx; amadeu@nominalia.com;
jcohen@shapirocohen.com; Joe_Sims@jonesday.com
Subject:	Re: [council] Post-election steps

my recollections are similiar to richard here ...

ken stubbs
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Lindsay <richard@interq.ad.jp>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Cc: <mclaughlin@pobox.com>; <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>;
<amadeu@nominalia.com>; <jcohen@shapirocohen.com>; <Joe_Sims@jonesday.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: [council] Post-election steps

> Kathryn,
> I do not recall agreeing to the timing of the audit of the results,
> just that we should do it.  We have the LA meeting in less than
> 2 weeks, so obviously we want to post our results as soon as possible.
> I have no idea how long this audit process (which we really didn't
> discuss in detail - as in who will do it, what about costs, etc.) will
> take.  If we can get the audit done by the 25th, I see no problems
> having the audit beforehand.  If it takes more time than that, I
> suggest we submit the results to ICANN and simultaneously
> pursue the independent review.
> I believe in many elections (of a much larger scale) audits and the
> results are conducted after the ballots have been counted and
> released, and the elected officials have begun serving their
> terms.  At least this is my impression.
> I suggest we continue with the proposal to vote on this.  If the
> motion doesn't pass, we audit first.  Kathryn, I suggest if you want
> to have this option included on the ballot (conduct audit first
> before confirming results) you propose a motion.
> Richard
> KathrynKL@aol.com wrote:
> > I do not believe that this was the agreement of Names Council.  It is a
> > material change in one of the major preconditions to continuing the
> > - conducting the audit prior to reporting the results. I think the
public and
> > our constituencies will be very concerned by our removing a promised
> > safeguard and independent review.
> >
> > I object.
> > Kathryn KLeman
> >
> > >
> > >  Based on Andrew's input tomorrow, we need to confirm the elections,
> > >  and notify the ICANN board by next Tuesday the 26th.  I do not think
> > >  means we cannot conduct an audit and review of the process, but
> > >  we cannot wait until the audit is complete.
> --
> _/_/_/"The Total Internet Infrastructure Company"
> _/_/_/interQ Incorporated
> _/_/_/System Division
> _/_/_/Director and General Manager
> _/_/_/Richard A. S. Lindsay
> _/_/_/Shibuya Infoss Tower 10F,
> _/_/_/20-1 Sakuragaoka-cho, Shibuya-ku Tokyo, (150-0031) Japan
> _/_/_/TELEPHONE:  81-3-5456-2687
> _/_/_/FACSIMILE:  81-3-5456-2556
> _/_/_/E-MAIL:  richard@interq.ad.jp
> _/_/_/HOME PAGE:  http://www.interq.ad.jp
> *****"Internet for Everyone!"*****