On Wednesday 11 January 2017 09:14 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
You are wrong, or rather misrepresenting things, Milton. Not just two "no" votes were expressing preference for what you call as small alterations in wording,*in fact, /all three "no" votes (including mine) were calling for just that small alteration. /**//*
/ /
MM: What I meant was that only one of the three people you refer to – namely you – expressed a view that going ahead was unacceptable. The other two simply preferred to have the wording changed, but were willing to go ahead without the (yes, minor) wording change they preferred. / /
/I dont see where you are reading the vote of these "other two" as agreeing to go ahead with the David's text. They clearly voted against, the only time a vote on text was called./ /The only point on which I alone voted against was, when Greg asked, and I quote "//We seem to have a consensus position. Anyone objecting to this being the consensus?" This was a call to agree or disagree with the "process' not the substance or text under judgement. / // /So, yes, I alone said, I do not agree with the consensus process. No one else did. Both you and Greg, in an earlier email, is taking it to be a 11-1 vote for the "text" finally adopted. It was a 11-3 vote, till the end. The opposing 3 never withdrew their opposition to the text finally agreed. Not objecting to a process being called consensus - as I did object - does not make them agree to the text under consideration. It is simple, isnt it./ // /The point may be moot now, but lets not misrepresent facts. / // /And then if the proposed amendments to David's text were really 'minor" as you re-assert, why did you / others not try and agree with them?/ // // / parminder /
/ /
_______________________________________________ Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list Ws2-jurisdiction@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction