Re: [council] NC teleconf agenda Thursday, October 3, 2002

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

I must say that I was completely surprised with 14 days,
as far as my memory goes back the Names council always voted 
in few days (and for ICANN Board even in hours or minutes
if we recall the 1999 elections and time allocated to each ballot).
The resolutions we vote on have been debated and consulted
with constituencies.
Slowing down the current vote is against ICANN interest,
will be useless for ERC report (already in late, was expected around
yesterday), and shows the NC itself in a bad shape.
We should have voted motions on the last call, and actually it was
already an option on 12 September, 3 weeks ago.

Elisabeth
--

> From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> To: <council@dnso.org>
> Subject: [council] NC teleconf agenda Thursday, October 3, 2002
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:14:16 +0200
> 
> Ref e-mail vote and item 3.1 of the agenda
> 
> Bruce, thanks for reminding us about the guidelines for a 14 day period 
> for an e-mail vote. Let me provide some background. 14 days was chosen 
> on the assumption:
> - normal monthly NC meetings
> - to give time for consultation on a new issue between NC meetings.
> 
> In this case we have a well aired issue and the opportunity of a normal 
> monthly meeting. In this case I propose that we agree to vote on the 4 
> resolutions on Thursday. I can't believe the vote will be a lot 
> different in 10 days time, and not ratified until November but it will 
> be a lot less useful for the ERC).
> 
> Philip
>