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
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Johan Helsingius <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 30 May 2024 14:39:52 -0400
Reply-To:
Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (19 lines)
+1 There must always be a place for the objection of good conscience.

On 5/30/2024 11:57 AM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
> On 30/05/2024 16:03, Ken Herman wrote:
>> Can you clarify what’s behind the need for this? 
>
> Basically a couple of cases where some constituencies haven't been happy
> with the consensus result achieved in a working group, so they block it
> in Council. Unfortunately it works both ways, but I don't think trying
> to force the council to always agree with WG recommendations is the
> solution - what is needed is some sort of "provide good justification
> to disagreeing".
>
>     Julf

-- 
Kathy Kleiman
Past President, Domain Name Rights Coalition

ATOM RSS1 RSS2