Re: I Disagree - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Discussion

[Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org>]

Your comment reply is reasonable and thank you for the clarification.  The intent of my message was not to advocate
public knowledge of *how* individual voters vote.

I can understand that certain WG voters may not have contributed comments while they monitored the debate process.
However, 25 voters seems like an excessively high turnout when compared to the few WG comment contributing participants.

Derek Conant


Sotiropoulos wrote:

> 1/26/01 4:54:57 PM, Derek Conant <dconant@dnsga.org> wrote:
>
> >If the WG is going to use votes for its direction, voters should be identified so
> >that WG contributing participants know that the votes and voters are legitimate.
>
> ***Of course, I don't think anyone is advocating public knowledge of *how* they voted; just *that* they participated
> in the voting.  I don't think this is unreasonable, especially in light of comments which support NC Member
> participation in the WG.  I don't think this is unreasonable in the slightest.
>  .
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>           Hermes Network, Inc.

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html