Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Discussion
At 01:25 PM 1/26/01, Derek Conant wrote:
>Question: I wonder why the majority of voters appear to want to abandon the
We've had over 250 posts to the WG on this topic - perhaps you might want
to review them :)
>Question: Who are the 25 voters?
>Question: Are any of the 25 voters representatives of ICANN/NC or any other
>ICANN policy making body?
I don't know, and don't care. What matters is that they are members of this
WG, have a right to participate, and have done so.
I find it curious - understandable, but still curious - that there has been
any focus or question about whether or not NC members should be
participating in the discussion here. By all means, examine what they write
and how they respond, it will help you to understand them, but to question
their participation seems counterproductive to an inclusive process. On the
one hand, there seems to be concern that the NC aren't taking the WG
seriously - on the other, concerns expressed when they participate. It
seems to me it would be rather hard to take the WG seriously and also not
participate, but perhaps I'm just an idealist.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html