| 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This discussion has been archived.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.
|
|
 |
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
]
|
|
Re: DNSO GA Votes to Ask Commerce to Re-bid ICANN'
by fnord
|
|

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
|