[ga] Joop's motions

["babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

Joop,

You were a participant in the DNSO Review Process.  The Review Working Group
together with the NC Review Task Force generated reports that were submitted
both to the Names Council and to the ICANN Board.  These reports resulted
in:

a. provisions within the Names Council Business Plan to specifically address
the subject of an Individuals Constituency.  "Review the need, uniqueness,
potential contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name
holder's constituency."

b. The agreement among NC members to establish criteria/procedures to allow
for new constituencies.

c. The presentation of the NC Business Plan to the Board.

d. An ICANN Board resolution (01.28) to consider DNSO structural changes.

Your first re-worded motion is asking the Board to establish "ground rules"
for an individuals' constituency.  The ICANN Board (in accepting the NC's
Business Plan and in making their 01.28 resolution) has already attended to
the need to establish ground rules.  The NC has been charged with this
responsibility, and your re-worded motion, in my opinion, creates an
unneeded redundancy.   Is my assessment incorrect?

Your second re-worded motion includes the clause "if and when such an
application is **again** presented to the Board.  This is an explicit
reference to the former idno petition.  Why should the GA be advocating on
behalf of any one petitioning group?  Why are you expecting the GA to take
sides?  Perhaps another representative body will emerge...there are many
members in this Assembly that are in favor of an Individual's Constituency
that have reservations about supporting the idno in particular.  Is it
necessary to include this language in your revised motion?

Speaking as an Individual,
Danny


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