RE: [council] Individuals' Constituency -- The way forward

["Antonio Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar>]

Danny,

Whereas I have no objection to the idea of individual name
holders being adequately represented in the ICANN structure
(I happen to be one myself), my question is: If an IDNH
constituency is implemented, who will the proposed
At Large SO be representing ?

Tony Harris

----- Mensaje original -----
De: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
Para: <council@dnso.org>
Enviado: Jueves 4 de Octubre de 2001 07:45
Asunto: [council] Individuals' Constituency -- The way forward


> With regard to an individual's constituency, Vint Cerf made it clear in
> Stockholm that the Board noted the GA's communication on the topic, and
> further stated that a "proposal should come through the NC."  He also
> commented that, "We would entertain any reasonable proposal in accordance
> with Bylaws."
>
> As the current Interim report of the Review Task Force does not appear to
> offer a reasonable proposal to expedite the creation of such a
constituency,
> perhaps the NC would instead consider adopting the following language:
>
> "In recognition of the relentless demand for an individuals constituency
and
> the acknowledged need for better representation of individuals in the
ICANN
> process, the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
> resolves to advise the ICANN Board to create such new Constituency upon
its
> own motion, as such action would serve the purposes of the Corporation,
and
> would be in accordance with the spirit of the Bylaws."