RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I have personally presented, repeatedly, over the past weeks, substantial
argument for something that could credibly replace the current system. That
argument was NOT created in a vacume. I have also received private and
public support for the individual concepts, which recently were integrated
into the MHSC comments and summary opinion, presented early this morning
(shortly after mid-night.

The proposal I put forth, makes the GA truely the primary assembly of the
DNSO, with the NC directly answerable to it.

> From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:rod@cyberspaces.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:35 AM
> 
> I think question #4 needs some work before a poll is taken. I 
> am not sure
> what the purpose a Names Council will serve in the absence of
> constituencies. If you vote to support abolition of  the 
> constituencies, it
> seems to me that the NC must go too; otherwise, you have a 
> structure that is
> worse, not better, than the status quo. It seems a bit silly 
> to vote to get
> rid of a structure without careful thinking about what should 
> replace it.
> Are we polling too quickly?

> > > 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)
--
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