| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
DNSO GA Votes to Ask Commerce to Re-bid ICANN's Gig
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 13 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
I'm really impressed by how you manage to twist the facts. But I suppose that only means that I really shouldn't expect ICANNwatch editors to give a full picture of a story, should I?
-
There were two motions. The second one (which does not call for an unconditional re-bid!) had 164 votes in favor, 33 against, and 19 abstentions. That's more in favor and less opposed than the "re-bid" motion. Still, you don't even mention that motion in a single sentence.
- You quote me as having admitted to a "rather creative application of the GA's voting rules." Yes, I said that. But I said that referring to a proposed voting mode which was not used in the end of the day - and by which, by the way, the second motion would have been the one considered the "winner" of this vote.
Anyway, congratulations to your newly improved skills in lying by omission.
T.R.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tlr writes:I said that referring to a proposed voting mode which was not used in the end of the day - and by which, by the way, the second motion would have been the one considered the "winner" of this vote. If it wasn't used at the end of the day, why do you now point out that the second Motion received more positive and less negative votes than the first, more or less declaring it the winner? As both options received clear majorities, quite a number of voters had to have voted yes to both, so a positive vote for the second can hardly be taken as a vote against the first. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
It was a clear majority of those voting. I don't go for the argument that those not voting should be taken into consideration. One can equally imply that those who didn't vote took that non-action because they were in agreement, or because they were opposed, or because they wished to abstain. However, not voting should not be taken as non-consensus, those not voting have consented to leaving the decision to others. Jamie Love has some interesting stats on the participation rate here. I've never been a fan of "consensus" in the ICANN arena. If consensus can't be found on something ICANN wants, it is claimed anyway, or manufactured. If consensus can be found on something ICANN doesn't want, it is ignored. At least with voting one has hard numbers to point to. -g
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | 3 replies beneath your current threshold. |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
