[ga] Re: Abusing Consensus in the Transfers TF
> the vote that the registrars conducted on the Transfers document was 1
> Abstention, 4 Disapproved, 35 Approved, and 117 didn't bother to vote.
> might call that consensus; I don't... I call it just another vote.
You presume that the 117 that didn't bother to vote actually had a vote. The
Registrar Constituency is a membership based constituency that only
represents the views and interests of matters as it pertains to the
activities of the DNSO and other ICANN forums.
> It was
> apparent to most that the document was an incomplete piece of work -- it
> failed to define the role of the reseller/ISP acting as an agent on behalf
> the registrant, and it clearly did not define "apparent authority".
The document presumes that "natural" legal definitions of both. Further,
these points have been explored by the task force. It remains to be seen
what, if any, consensus the task force has on these points, but it is
neither the documents place, nor ICANN's to redefine pre-existing legal
definitions and roles.
> anything, the consensus conclusion was that 3/4 of your constituency
> considered the document prematurely tabled, incomplete, and not ready to
> voted upon.
Again, this is not the case for the reasons noted above.
If the task force deems that my actions are premature, then we will deal
with that in the context of the task force. As it stands, your allegations
of inappropriate behavior simply do not wash.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html