RE: [registrars] Proposals for Rules for the Association

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Rob,

Please read the by-laws. I respectfully disagree with your statement that
there was a violation of the by-laws. It states that "The Constituency will
endeavor to make all voting public."

I advocated for the more stringent mandatory public disclosure, but lost. In
fact if I recall it was you and Elana that advocated this more flexible
solution. I asked the Names Counsel representatives to make the results
public upon the close of the election, but the results provided to him by
the DNSO votebot were encoded.

Therefore, I agree that most voting should be public as stated in the
by-laws but strenuously disagree that there was a violation of the by-laws
in connection with the last election.

Mike






> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Rob Hall
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 4:35 PM
> To: Ross Wm. Rader
> Cc: Registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Proposals for Rules for the Association
>
>
> And I support open votes.  Our constituency constitution requires
> it in the
> default.  We seem to have already violated our constituency
> bylaws with the
> recent election.  While we have a place holder in the bylaw for closed
> votes in special circumstances, the vast majority should be open, unless
> agreed by all on a sensitive issue before hand.
>
> Default -> Open votes.
>
> Rob.
>
>
> --
> Rob Hall                                voice  (613) 768-5100
> President                                  fax  (613) 820-0777
> Momentous.ca Corp.
> rob@momentous.ca                      www.momentous.ca
>
>
>
> iti,s
>