Take a Step Backwards - Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Discussion
Maybe the best thing for the WG is to take a step backwards, as you put it.
The WG taking a step backwards sounds like a good idea to me, and why not?!
What's the rush here? Let's do it right, not wrong. I don't believe that it
is a good idea to push the WG forward with an apparently flawed process. ICANN
itself has a flawed process, now we can fix this WG process. Let's fix the WG
process, then move forward. Nothing good will come from a flawed process.
70 people may have posted to this WG out of 200 members, however, you cannot
deny that there were less than 25 WG participants contributing comments to the
debates at issue. Where did 25 voters come from and who are they? The WG
voting count appears exaggerated and the identity of the voters have not been
[MOTION] that the WG take a step backwards and fix the erroneous process
problem before moving another inch forward.
Greg Burton wrote:
> At 04:17 PM 1/26/01, Derek Conant wrote:
> >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.
> Since somewhere over 70 people have posted to this group, out of over 200
> initial members, I regard it as disappointingly low. The voting rules have
> been discussed, voted on, and in effect for weeks now. Going back to
> process when we have an actual topic on the table strikes me as a step
> So, can we discuss the topic?
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html