Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

On 14:16 15/01/01 -0500, Sotiropoulos said:
>1/15/01 10:05:12 AM, Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com> wrote:
>
>>It seems clear that there is widespread - almost consensus - support for us 
>>to recommend a constituency of some kind here.
>
>Actually Greg, I'd say that there was more widespread support for the
dissolution of the constitency structure.  In fact it appears to be a
majority, check it 
>out: http://pollcat.com/Lite/report.asp?report=report/tzk27voon5_a
>

This is an important point. Important enough for a more formal poll.
With permission of the Chair, I will put up four more polling questions in
the Booth:

1. Should in your opinion the constituency structure of the DNSO be
abandoned altogether?
 Yes/No/ No opinion

2. If the Constituency structure is retained, do you favour the addition of
an Individual DN Holder constituency?
YES/NO

3. If the  Constituency structure is retained, do you favour  a reduction
of NC seats belonging to the existing constituencies and redistribution of
seats in order to more evenly balance opposing interests?
YES/NO/ other (please specify)

4. If the Constituency structure is abandoned, how would you want to
represent the Individual Domain Name holders on the Names Council?

-not at all
-turn the GA into an electoral college for the NC
-other: please specify on the comment line
(multiple choice possible)

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