Re: [ga] Motion - DNS Developper Constituency - Acknowldegement for aStudy

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Disagree. Same reason. (And, methinks, ideas can be floated
in other than the form of a motion, and should be "vetted out"
(studied) before ever getting to the stage of a formal motion.)

Bill Lovell

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> After the approval of plan B by the Doc leading to a M$ 200
> development effort on the DNS, after various propositions of
> multi-bind solutions, after the entrance of the market of several
> plug-ins of which the purpose if to modify the user's string
> sent to the DNS, after the different official studies engaged
> in order to review the DNS (including the NAS current study
> on White House request), after the annoucement or the
> public knowlegde of plans of several private galaxies, IMHO
> it becomes advisable that the BoD stays abreast in matter
> of independent politcial, commercial, technical trends and
> initiatives in matter of DNS evolution and helps a development
> coordinated with the SSRAC and the CRADA,
>
> I therefore move the following motion to the Chair:
>
> "
> The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its
> support for the acknowledgement of the need for an DNS
> Developper Constituency by the ICANN Board in accordance
> with its Bylaws. The General Assembly of the DNSO
> recommends to the ICANN Board that to foster the study and
> the preparation of such an Individual User Constituency it
> places an approval in principle on its agenda for a decision
> at the Stockholm plennary session.
>
> Agree/Disagree
> "
>
> --
> 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

--
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