Re: do we want to have constituency meetings in singapore next month?

[Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>]

Andrew Q. Kraft, MAIP, Executive Director a écrit:
> 
> Chon and all,
> 
> While not OPPOSED, personally, to a meeting of constituencies, keep in mind
> that at this point, there are TWO proposals for the DNSO, and only ONE
> defines which constituencies there will be. 

I'm glad Andrew pointed this out. I was a little concerned, myself,
when I saw Chon's agenda, because it seemed to be automatically
accepting that there were constituencies, something that's far from
agreed upon by the Paris draft supporters, myself included. Andrew's
intelligent suggestion on how to proceed at Singapore has my full
support, with one proviso: I don't think negotiations should be held
with the idea that the two drafts must be merged, but rather with
the idea that their sponsors will try to find a compromise. After
all, there's certainly nothing that says there can't remain two
proposals, and let ICANN decide what to do about it. 

When it comes to the real stickers - constituencies, trademark
voting separate from business voting, and the registry split and
veto power - it might be best not to remove all wording that
receives opposition and allow ICANN to broker a compromise, since we
can't (and there's no real need to) guess what ICANN will approve.