RE: [wg-d] determining the make up of working group D

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

I agree, which is why the note was sent out yesterday to ask all to let us
know from which constiuency they were, if any, so we could then make sure
the other constituencies made sure to have participation. I've sent a note
to the business constituency noting that they need to have involvement, and
will likewise ask the interim representatives on the pNC to make sure their
respective constituencies are aware that they need to have involvement.

From the responses received so far to the request (for these purposes), it's
my sense that we need to still get participation from the ISP, IP, Business,
Registrars, gTLD to fullfill the bylaw requirements. Likewise, I believe its
important to have strong geographic representation as well (basis for
yesterday's question on regional affiliation).

I agree we need to make sure there is balanced representation, and an
interest and encouragement to participate, if this group is to accomplish
its task.

Theresa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-d@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-d@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Karl
> Auerbach
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 1999 1:32 AM
> To: wg-d@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-d] determining the make up of working group D
>
>
>
> The ICANN bylaws require that each working group contain a person from
> each constituency who has been actually nominated by that
> constituency.
>
> Thus to be technically in compliance with the ICANN requirements, each
> constituency has to take some action to nominate a specific
> person who is
> its representive on each working group.
>
> (This, of course, gives those constituences who want to block
> a working
> group a means of doing so by withholding their nomination.)
>
> I figure that the wg on procedure ought to be somewhat of a
> stickler for
> procedure.  ;-)
>
> 		--karl--
>
>
>