Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Stephvg2 <stephvg2@gmail.com> Date: July 13, 2009 12:49:25 PM GMT+02:00 To: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>, Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws
I agree that Tim's approach is sensible. But if we're aiming for maximum transparency, I would also like it be recorded that in my message before the meeting stating I would be unable to participate, I said I would vote in favor. This may also be useful info for the Board.
I'm not sure I can post to the Council list from this, my secondary email address, so perhaps one of you would be kind enough to forward this message to the Council list.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 13 juil. 2009 à 11:03, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch
a écrit :
Hi
Avri's proposed approach is sensible and would be NCUC's preference. However, if there's overwhelming sentiment that differentiated reporting is needed, it would be better to respect board members' intelligence and dispense with the transparent spinning. Tim's approach would be preferable in that context.
Bill
On Jul 10, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Would it be okay to report the vote something like this:
13 Votes in favor: Tim Ruiz (RrC) 2 votes Chuck Gomes (RyC) 2 votes Avri Doria (NCA) 1 vote etc.
1 Vote against: Cyril Chua (IPC) 1 vote
Abstained: Kristina Rosette (IPC) Statement William Drake (NCUC) Statement
Not present: Philip Sheppard (CBUC) Anthony Harris (ISPC) etc.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar> Date: Fri, July 10, 2009 9:33 am To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Avri,
Perhaps, in this sunset of the GNSO as we have known it, you may see your way to accomodating this rather simple request from three of the existing constituencies.
I beleive that all of us are trying to get the restructuring process "right", and certain issues are important to some rather than to others. I think the Board deserves to be aware of this.
Thank you.
Tony Harris
----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:28 AM Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws
Avri, this request is about transparency and relevance. It is a formal request from the BC. Philip
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
Does that mean we can all indicate how we would have voted to the Board? Avri - could you provide can update of where we are with this. Have you communicated anything at all to the Board regarding this vote yet? Tony _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: 13 July 2009 11:56 To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane) Begin forwarded message: From: Stephvg2 <stephvg2@gmail.com> Date: July 13, 2009 12:49:25 PM GMT+02:00 To: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>, Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws I agree that Tim's approach is sensible. But if we're aiming for maximum transparency, I would also like it be recorded that in my message before the meeting stating I would be unable to participate, I said I would vote in favor. This may also be useful info for the Board. I'm not sure I can post to the Council list from this, my secondary email address, so perhaps one of you would be kind enough to forward this message to the Council list. Thanks, Stéphane Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 13 juil. 2009 à 11:03, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> a écrit : Hi Avri's proposed approach is sensible and would be NCUC's preference. However, if there's overwhelming sentiment that differentiated reporting is needed, it would be better to respect board members' intelligence and dispense with the transparent spinning. Tim's approach would be preferable in that context. Bill On Jul 10, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: Would it be okay to report the vote something like this: 13 Votes in favor: Tim Ruiz (RrC) 2 votes Chuck Gomes (RyC) 2 votes Avri Doria (NCA) 1 vote etc. 1 Vote against: Cyril Chua (IPC) 1 vote Abstained: Kristina Rosette (IPC) Statement William Drake (NCUC) Statement Not present: Philip Sheppard (CBUC) Anthony Harris (ISPC) etc. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar> Date: Fri, July 10, 2009 9:33 am To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Avri, Perhaps, in this sunset of the GNSO as we have known it, you may see your way to accomodating this rather simple request from three of the existing constituencies. I beleive that all of us are trying to get the restructuring process "right", and certain issues are important to some rather than to others. I think the Board deserves to be aware of this. Thank you. Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:28 AM Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws Avri, this request is about transparency and relevance. It is a formal request from the BC. Philip *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
Perhaps we should create a drafting team? Or a team to draft a charter for a drafting team? We could be ready to report the vote in August... After all the public pronouncements and back channel communications, is there really any chance that the board does not know where the constituencies stand on the bylaws? Why spend time negotiating how to package and spoon feed them things they already know? Why not just report the vote per usual and move on? Bill On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Tony Holmes wrote:
Does that mean we can all indicate how we would have voted to the Board?
Avri - could you provide can update of where we are with this. Have you communicated anything at all to the Board regarding this vote yet?
Tony
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org ] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: 13 July 2009 11:56 To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Stephvg2 <stephvg2@gmail.com> Date: July 13, 2009 12:49:25 PM GMT+02:00 To: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>, Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws
I agree that Tim's approach is sensible. But if we're aiming for maximum transparency, I would also like it be recorded that in my message before the meeting stating I would be unable to participate, I said I would vote in favor. This may also be useful info for the Board.
I'm not sure I can post to the Council list from this, my secondary email address, so perhaps one of you would be kind enough to forward this message to the Council list.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 13 juil. 2009 à 11:03, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch
a écrit :
Hi
Avri's proposed approach is sensible and would be NCUC's preference. However, if there's overwhelming sentiment that differentiated reporting is needed, it would be better to respect board members' intelligence and dispense with the transparent spinning. Tim's approach would be preferable in that context.
Bill
On Jul 10, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Would it be okay to report the vote something like this:
13 Votes in favor: Tim Ruiz (RrC) 2 votes Chuck Gomes (RyC) 2 votes Avri Doria (NCA) 1 vote etc.
1 Vote against: Cyril Chua (IPC) 1 vote
Abstained: Kristina Rosette (IPC) Statement William Drake (NCUC) Statement
Not present: Philip Sheppard (CBUC) Anthony Harris (ISPC) etc.
Tim
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar> Date: Fri, July 10, 2009 9:33 am To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Avri,
Perhaps, in this sunset of the GNSO as we have known it, you may see your way to accomodating this rather simple request from three of the existing constituencies.
I beleive that all of us are trying to get the restructuring process "right", and certain issues are important to some rather than to others. I think the Board deserves to be aware of this.
Thank you.
Tony Harris
----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:28 AM Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws
Avri, this request is about transparency and relevance. It is a formal request from the BC. Philip
*********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
Well, if thats the case and the Board know everything anyway, then why bother to have a vote at all??? But as there was a vote, I would appreciate knowing what if anything has happened since. _____ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: 13 July 2009 13:22 To: Tony Holmes Cc: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] RE: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane) Perhaps we should create a drafting team? Or a team to draft a charter for a drafting team? We could be ready to report the vote in August... After all the public pronouncements and back channel communications, is there really any chance that the board does not know where the constituencies stand on the bylaws? Why spend time negotiating how to package and spoon feed them things they already know? Why not just report the vote per usual and move on? Bill On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Tony Holmes wrote: Does that mean we can all indicate how we would have voted to the Board? Avri - could you provide can update of where we are with this. Have you communicated anything at all to the Board regarding this vote yet? Tony _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: 13 July 2009 11:56 To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane) Begin forwarded message: From: Stephvg2 <stephvg2@gmail.com> Date: July 13, 2009 12:49:25 PM GMT+02:00 To: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>, Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws I agree that Tim's approach is sensible. But if we're aiming for maximum transparency, I would also like it be recorded that in my message before the meeting stating I would be unable to participate, I said I would vote in favor. This may also be useful info for the Board. I'm not sure I can post to the Council list from this, my secondary email address, so perhaps one of you would be kind enough to forward this message to the Council list. Thanks, Stéphane Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 13 juil. 2009 à 11:03, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> a écrit : Hi Avri's proposed approach is sensible and would be NCUC's preference. However, if there's overwhelming sentiment that differentiated reporting is needed, it would be better to respect board members' intelligence and dispense with the transparent spinning. Tim's approach would be preferable in that context. Bill On Jul 10, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: Would it be okay to report the vote something like this: 13 Votes in favor: Tim Ruiz (RrC) 2 votes Chuck Gomes (RyC) 2 votes Avri Doria (NCA) 1 vote etc. 1 Vote against: Cyril Chua (IPC) 1 vote Abstained: Kristina Rosette (IPC) Statement William Drake (NCUC) Statement Not present: Philip Sheppard (CBUC) Anthony Harris (ISPC) etc. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar> Date: Fri, July 10, 2009 9:33 am To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Avri, Perhaps, in this sunset of the GNSO as we have known it, you may see your way to accomodating this rather simple request from three of the existing constituencies. I beleive that all of us are trying to get the restructuring process "right", and certain issues are important to some rather than to others. I think the Board deserves to be aware of this. Thank you. Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:28 AM Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws Avri, this request is about transparency and relevance. It is a formal request from the BC. Philip *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
Nothing has been communicated to the Board regarding the vote. As Avri communicated in our call last week, each person who abstained was to be given an opportunity to confirm that their reason for abstaining was recorded accurately. Glen sent a draft of the action on the motion with proposed abstention language to the applicable Councilors and we are still waiting for responses. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tony Holmes Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:42 AM To: 'William Drake' Cc: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: [council] RE: [council] RE: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane) Well, if that's the case and the Board know everything anyway, then why bother to have a vote at all??? But as there was a vote, I would appreciate knowing what if anything has happened since. ________________________________ From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: 13 July 2009 13:22 To: Tony Holmes Cc: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] RE: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane) Perhaps we should create a drafting team? Or a team to draft a charter for a drafting team? We could be ready to report the vote in August... After all the public pronouncements and back channel communications, is there really any chance that the board does not know where the constituencies stand on the bylaws? Why spend time negotiating how to package and spoon feed them things they already know? Why not just report the vote per usual and move on? Bill On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Tony Holmes wrote: Does that mean we can all indicate how we would have voted to the Board? Avri - could you provide can update of where we are with this. Have you communicated anything at all to the Board regarding this vote yet? Tony ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: 13 July 2009 11:56 To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane) Begin forwarded message: From: Stephvg2 <stephvg2@gmail.com> Date: July 13, 2009 12:49:25 PM GMT+02:00 To: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>, Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws I agree that Tim's approach is sensible. But if we're aiming for maximum transparency, I would also like it be recorded that in my message before the meeting stating I would be unable to participate, I said I would vote in favor. This may also be useful info for the Board. I'm not sure I can post to the Council list from this, my secondary email address, so perhaps one of you would be kind enough to forward this message to the Council list. Thanks, Stéphane Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 13 juil. 2009 à 11:03, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> a écrit : Hi Avri's proposed approach is sensible and would be NCUC's preference. However, if there's overwhelming sentiment that differentiated reporting is needed, it would be better to respect board members' intelligence and dispense with the transparent spinning. Tim's approach would be preferable in that context. Bill On Jul 10, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote: Would it be okay to report the vote something like this: 13 Votes in favor: Tim Ruiz (RrC) 2 votes Chuck Gomes (RyC) 2 votes Avri Doria (NCA) 1 vote etc. 1 Vote against: Cyril Chua (IPC) 1 vote Abstained: Kristina Rosette (IPC) Statement William Drake (NCUC) Statement Not present: Philip Sheppard (CBUC) Anthony Harris (ISPC) etc. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar> Date: Fri, July 10, 2009 9:33 am To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Avri, Perhaps, in this sunset of the GNSO as we have known it, you may see your way to accomodating this rather simple request from three of the existing constituencies. I beleive that all of us are trying to get the restructuring process "right", and certain issues are important to some rather than to others. I think the Board deserves to be aware of this. Thank you. Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:28 AM Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws Avri, this request is about transparency and relevance. It is a formal request from the BC. Philip *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************
Hi Chuck, Is there a Time limit for people who abstained to respond with a reason why they did so? Thanks, Stéphane Envoyé de mon iPhone Le 13 juil. 2009 à 15:16, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit :
Nothing has been communicated to the Board regarding the vote. As Avri communicated in our call last week, each person who abstained was to be given an opportunity to confirm that their reason for abstaining was recorded accurately. Glen sent a draft of the action on the motion with proposed abstention language to the applicable Councilors and we are still waiting for responses.
Chuck
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tony Holmes Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:42 AM To: 'William Drake' Cc: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: [council] RE: [council] RE: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane)
Well, if that’s the case and the Board know everything anyway, then why bother to have a vote at all???
But as there was a vote, I would appreciate knowing what if anything has happened since.
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: 13 July 2009 13:22 To: Tony Holmes Cc: 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] RE: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane)
Perhaps we should create a drafting team? Or a team to draft a charter for a drafting team? We could be ready to report the vote in August...
After all the public pronouncements and back channel communications, is there really any chance that the board does not know where the constituencies stand on the bylaws? Why spend time negotiating how to package and spoon feed them things they already know? Why not just report the vote per usual and move on?
Bill
On Jul 13, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Tony Holmes wrote:
Does that mean we can all indicate how we would have voted to the Board?
Avri - could you provide can update of where we are with this. Have you communicated anything at all to the Board regarding this vote yet?
Tony
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: 13 July 2009 11:56 To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Re: Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Stephvg2 <stephvg2@gmail.com> Date: July 13, 2009 12:49:25 PM GMT+02:00 To: William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> Cc: Tim Ruiz <tim@godaddy.com>, Avri Doria <avri@psg.com> Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws
I agree that Tim's approach is sensible. But if we're aiming for maximum transparency, I would also like it be recorded that in my message before the meeting stating I would be unable to participate, I said I would vote in favor. This may also be useful info for the Board.
I'm not sure I can post to the Council list from this, my secondary email address, so perhaps one of you would be kind enough to forward this message to the Council list.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 13 juil. 2009 à 11:03, William Drake <william.drake@graduateinstitute.c h> a écrit :
Hi
Avri's proposed approach is sensible and would be NCUC's preference. However, if there's overwhelming sentiment that differentiated reporting is needed, it would be better to respect board members' intelligence and dispense with the transparent spinning. Tim's approach would be preferable in that context.
Bill
On Jul 10, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
Would it be okay to report the vote something like this:
13 Votes in favor:
Tim Ruiz (RrC) 2 votes
Chuck Gomes (RyC) 2 votes
Avri Doria (NCA) 1 vote
etc.
1 Vote against:
Cyril Chua (IPC) 1 vote
Abstained:
Kristina Rosette (IPC) Statement
William Drake (NCUC) Statement
Not present:
Philip Sheppard (CBUC)
Anthony Harris (ISPC)
etc.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws
From: "Anthony Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar>
Date: Fri, July 10, 2009 9:33 am
To: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, "'Council GNSO'"
<council@gnso.icann.org>
Avri,
Perhaps, in this sunset of the GNSO as we
have known it, you may see your way to
accomodating this rather simple request from
three of the existing constituencies.
I beleive that all of us are trying to get the
restructuring process "right", and certain
issues are important to some rather than to
others. I think the Board deserves to be
aware of this.
Thank you.
Tony Harris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:28 AM
Subject: [council] Council vote on by-laws
Avri,
this request is about transparency and relevance.
It is a formal request from the BC.
Philip
On 13 Jul 2009, at 07:03, Tony Holmes wrote:
Avri - could you provide can update of where we are with this. Have you communicated anything at all to the Board regarding this vote yet?
Immediately after the meeting, I sent Raimundo informal notice of the results indicating that a formal announcement was forthcoming - he had asked to be let know immediately. This was before receiving the CSG- to-be request. I am now waiting on the formal notice of a vote that Glen puts out after the abstentions check the wording to make sure it says what they meant to say, and after watching the dialogue to figure what, if anything, I attach to the bottom of the formal announcement as per the request of the CSG-to-be or the counter requests of others. As instructed during the meeting I will also be sending notification of the vote to the comment list. I am not sure it is possible in this case, but i will try to word that note in such a way as to not offend anyone on the council too much. Finally, I do not plan on adding a list of how everyone who was absent, either due to previous announced absence or just absence, say they would have voted had they been in attendance or had the absentee ballot provisions been in effect. I would also point out that the comment list is open and all that wish to add comments are encouraged to do so. this might be a great place to indicate how you would have voted had you voted. Apologies for the delays in answering, I was attending the 'overarching' issues meeting in NYC and there was no connectivity - just stopped into a Starbucks so I could respond to the email. thanks a.
Avri. Thanks for the update, it was helpful. Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: 13 July 2009 22:58 To: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Council vote on by-laws (from Stéphane) On 13 Jul 2009, at 07:03, Tony Holmes wrote:
Avri - could you provide can update of where we are with this. Have you communicated anything at all to the Board regarding this vote yet?
Immediately after the meeting, I sent Raimundo informal notice of the results indicating that a formal announcement was forthcoming - he had asked to be let know immediately. This was before receiving the CSG- to-be request. I am now waiting on the formal notice of a vote that Glen puts out after the abstentions check the wording to make sure it says what they meant to say, and after watching the dialogue to figure what, if anything, I attach to the bottom of the formal announcement as per the request of the CSG-to-be or the counter requests of others. As instructed during the meeting I will also be sending notification of the vote to the comment list. I am not sure it is possible in this case, but i will try to word that note in such a way as to not offend anyone on the council too much. Finally, I do not plan on adding a list of how everyone who was absent, either due to previous announced absence or just absence, say they would have voted had they been in attendance or had the absentee ballot provisions been in effect. I would also point out that the comment list is open and all that wish to add comments are encouraged to do so. this might be a great place to indicate how you would have voted had you voted. Apologies for the delays in answering, I was attending the 'overarching' issues meeting in NYC and there was no connectivity - just stopped into a Starbucks so I could respond to the email. thanks a.
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Stephvg2 -
Tony Holmes -
William Drake