Let's be clear that there is nothing unethical about needing to consult further with our constituencies or to get more information. I agree that claiming one of these reasons dishonestly would be unethical but I really don't think we any of us would do that, and if we did, we have a much bigger problem. I am still not convinced that the suggestion is all that complex but like I said, if we are truly willing to delay votes until all are ready, that solves the problem I was trying to solve. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:49 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Enfranchising absent voters I argued against this new change in the group as it gets too complex. It would mean a council member chooses to vote then or later. But would only vote later if the trigger for an e-vote that the outcome may be affected applies. But that choice itself (to vote later or not) itself may affect the trigger. This means the vote is open to gaming and the choice is thus unethical. Moreover, presenting such a complex proposal to the Board would likely kill it. Philip PS Our current practise is to delay a vote until we are all ready, so the benefit of the addition seems to be small in comparison to the cost in complexity / ethics.