NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.4)
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
"Carlos A. Afonso" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:54:56 +0100
Reply-To:
Desiree Miloshevic <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Desiree Miloshevic <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (104 lines)
On 18 Aug 2011, at 12:13, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:

> Well, triple-checked my email and never got the ballot... :(
>
> --c.a.
>
That is odd.
Can't you request the ballot again?


> On 08/18/2011 08:03 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Somewhat.  I do not have the latest count of who voted.
>> I will probably request one at the end of this week since we still  
>> have one more week to go. Until 26 August.
>> I try not to ask too often as it creates more work for the people  
>> managing the vote.
>> Though, many people have told me privately that they have now voted  
>> so I am taking heart from that for the moment.
>>
>> For anyone who is postponing their vote, until they have had a  
>> chance to explore the difference in detail between the docs and who  
>> does not wish to do a difference check themselves, I have created a  
>> Word based compare-documents document.  It can be found on the NCSG  
>> wiki page at:
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/8945698/diif-Board_approved_NCSG+-approved.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1313626105000
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://is.gd/wbE4bP
>>
>> I know that I discussed these on the list over the last years, but  
>> I am sure not everyone paid attention or remembers.  Also I am not  
>> sure how many people read the intermediate versions that were  
>> posted throughout the process - though I know some did, for I would  
>> periodically receive comments and question.
>>
>> In any case I probably should have done this earlier and not waited  
>> for 2 voters to ask for it, but …
>>
>> But if the absence of this comparison doc was the reason for any  
>> active member of the charter ballot voting list to avoid voting,  
>> that reason should now be alleviated.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> a.
>>
>> PS.
>>
>> Back to my last day of holiday in Edinburgh before starting the 2  
>> day trek back home.
>> Plan to check out the art festival and have tickets for 2 shows  
>> tonight.
>>
>> http://www.edfringe.com/whats-on/theatre/fragments-of-ash
>> http://www.edfringe.com/whats-on/theatre/female-hitchhiker-the-truth-about-getting-around-free
>>
>> and maybe catch another performance at:
>>
>> http://home.dancebase.co.uk/
>>
>> I better get going.
>>
>> On 17 Aug 2011, at 19:07, Nicolas Adam wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Have things improved since?
>>>
>>> Nicolas,
>>> ncuc
>>>
>>> On 8/15/2011 4:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> At the last check, among those on the active member list who were  
>>>> sent ballots
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -  the reps of 7 large organizations have not yet voted on the  
>>>> charter  - 28 votes
>>>>
>>>> -  the reps of 10 small organizations have not yet voted on the  
>>>> charter - 20 votes
>>>>
>>>> -  23 individuals have not yet voted on the charter - 23 votes
>>>>
>>>> That's 71 missing votes.
>>>>
>>>> That is 71 votes effectively against the new charter
>>>>
>>>> That is a 45% vote against the charter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> a.
>>>
>>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2