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

Utter incompatance was:Re: [ga] So far, 28 poll answers logged



Roberto and everybody else,

  You know very well Roberto that the ICANN Bylaws specifically
state that the ICANN Board must accept the recommendations of the
DNSO, that is why it is called the Domain Name supporting organization
after all.  Please don't purposefully mislead members of this list in this 
manner.  If indeed you are not doing so than you have displayed 
clearly that you have a very poor grasp as to what is in the ICANN
Bylaws...

David "Dude" Jenson
INEGRoup-East Director

In a message dated 1/24/00 10:20:48 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
roberto.gaetano@voila.fr writes:

<< Kent,
 
 You wrote:
 >
 >Good point.  The votebot is really intended for formal votes, and for 
 >that reason it may never be appropriate for the GA, since according to 
 
 >the bylaws the GA is not a decision making body.
 >
 
 I disagree.
 
 We have to distinguish between the fact of conducting a vote and how 
 binding the result of the vote will be for "third parties".
 Even if the Bylaws do not assign formal decisional power to the GA, we 
 cannot assume that there will never be a "delegated" power to the GA for
  decision making and/or that the "decisions" of the GA will not have a 
 political impact on the NC and/or other decisional instances of ICANN.
 
 To be clear, under the current circumstances, a handful of people 
 expressing an opinion on a subject could hardly be seen as an event that
  can affect ICANN decisions in any way, so I agree with you in this case
 , the voting procedure is a red herring.
 OTOH, should the GA have a membership of the order of the thousands 
 (just an example), it would be irresponsible not to have peocedures that
  ensure proper voting because even a simple opinion poll may have heavy 
 political ripercussions.
 
 >
 >The votebot will show current results any time you send it a tally 
 >command.  I also added a web template that will show the current state 
 
 >of the vote a while back.
 >
 
 In this case, I stand corrected.
 
 >[...]
 
 Regards
 Roberto
  >>