ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Re: Ballot


At 07:56 19/05/01 -0500, Bruce James wrote:
>I would suggest that we leave out:  ****or the "approval in principle" ****
>
>Now it reads:
>
>The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
>immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the ICANN Board
>in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends
>to the ICANN Board that it place the creation of such an Individuals'
>Constituency (DNSO-IC) on its agenda for a decision at the Stockholm plenary
>session.
>
>/Bruce
>

Dear Bruce,

I would like the original additional option ("approval in principle") to be part of the wording of my motion. 
This is the smaller step, easier to take for the Board. "Creation" by the Board, is likely to be referred back to the NC for "advice".


I am willing to clarify the motion so that no doubt exists that we are talking about "Domain Name Holders" and not Individual "users". 
Jefsey wants this clarification.

Clarified motion for the ballot:

The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency (a constituency of Individual Domain Name holders)  by the ICANN Board in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends to the ICANN Board that it place either the creation of such an Individuals' Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for a decision at
the Stockholm plenary session.

Agree/Disagree







--Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>