<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH
- To: "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>, "Bret Busby" <bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>, "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
- Subject: Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH
- From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:43:59 -0500
- Cc: <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>, <wg-review@dnso.org>, <gusion@gusion.com>, "YJ Park \(MINC\)" <yjpark@minc.org>
- References: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F0922869C6A@condor.mhsc.com>
- Reply-To: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>
- Sender: owner-wg-review@dnso.org
I guess my point is that the vote should not be just a question about
abolishing X. The question(s) should ask whether we abolish X and replace it
with Y.
Rod
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: "'Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.'" <rod@cyberspaces.org>; "Bret Busby"
<bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>; "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Cc: <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>; <wg-review@dnso.org>; <gusion@gusion.com>;
"YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 2:53 PM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH
> 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|