I did not see Jaqueline's emergency, sorry about that.
And Jose's absence. But then we need someone else other
than the staff who seems to be the only one already knows
the result of the secret vote, have the technical power to
setup the vote. Nick, you did not reply to my meta-question if
you already know the result. And I repeat if you do, you
should really refrain from making any intervention.

I propose that we discuss and decide at the next conference call on
wheter another vote is necesarry or not, and, if we agree with
one proposal just to announce the result, then we will meet
the 13th deadline, no problem.

As for the procedure, after two proposals were on the table,
both seconded, the very person whod wanted one proposal
withdrew the request to the vote, another person who never
showed up said nothing,

I took it as the situation changed, and thought one proposal is
no lonter on the table. So there is no need to vote. I saw several
people agreed with that in essence, no one insisted to vote to
allow extended vote for the two. Then Nick said to vote. So I
said no.

That is my summary.

If we still need to vote, we need another propsal for the changed
situation. Is there anyone still want to let the remaining silent
one to vote?

I was misled, by the following phrase by Nick.

"If the sponsors of these proposals were
to withdraw them then of course they would not need to be dealt with."

But in any case, the situation has changed and I see no need
to vote. Especially, in the absence of agreed ROP and Chair
and Vice Chair...

I still think the overall situation is quite bizzare. But in any
case let's decided at the conference call.

izumi

2007/9/8, Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org>: