<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Voting rules for the combined WHOIS task force
- To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Voting rules for the combined WHOIS task force
- From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:03:23 -0400
- Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <200506151244.j5FCiZho006231@turbo.aim.be>
- Organization: Tucows Inc.
- References: <200506151244.j5FCiZho006231@turbo.aim.be>
- Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 15/06/2005 8:47 AM Philip Sheppard noted that;
> I think it would be most logical to remain with the principle that each
> constituency has one vote on a task force regardless of the task force's
> evolution.
If we had chartered a new task force, this would make eminent sense, but
given the special circumstances associated with this task force, it
would be easier for us to simply give the rep from each of the prior
task forces a vote. This would make it much easier for my constituency
from a procedural standpoint as well.
I can't argue with Phillip's logic, but cannot ignore the practical
difficulties that this would create for my, and presumably other,
constituencies...
I'd be more than happy to clarify on tomorrow's call if necessary.
- -rwr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)
iD8DBQFCsCcb6sL06XjirooRAvaLAJ4+Q0Pg3zZnMDbZRqevYNLNoOReZACghv+W
8CpR2H4yDFxER6/RnHNVsAI=
=pOUj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|