[ga-icann] bottom up consensus?

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Are we supposed to consider this type of thing a bottom up consensus ICANN
style? I asked the question to Stuart Lynn. He has yet to respond to the
question The following is an email from an archive around the time of the
verisign deal.


In the Names Council meeting: Verisign Agreement issue
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales (vany@sdnp.org.pa)
Date: Sun Mar 11 2001 - 16:02:30 kst
Hi to all:

Joe Simms made a presentation to the Names Council about Versign
Agreement Proposal.
A question I made was:
"In the event that DNSO achieve to provide inputs on this issue: Is
this proposal open to any changes and/or amendments in the points that
deals with policy?"

The answer of Joe Simms was: NO.

I concluded that the agreement proposal is only subjected to be
commented:
- yes the proposal is nice
- no, follow with the actual agreement

Louis Touton just said that there's no alternative for any extension of
datelines.

My comment to the NCDNHC is the following: Follow working in this
issue, lets surprise ICANN Board with a position by April 1srt, but at
the same time letting them know that this situation might not be
repeated in the future, and that we ask for more respect about any
process issues.

I will make a call within the Names Council through the mailing list to
do the same.

Are the NCDNHC to complete this titanic work by April 1rst?

Best Regards
Vany
:-)

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-icann@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-icann" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html