RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I don't think that we can, at this time present a considered version of Y,
on the polling booth. The documents I have presented are a good start, or a
good strawman, but they are not perfect and they need group input/buy-in,
before they can be presented on a polling list.

I think that it would be a mistake to try, at this time. First, let us
consider that we need to go there. Then we figure out the way.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:rod@cyberspaces.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 1:44 PM
> To: Roeland Meyer; Bret Busby; Joop Teernstra
> Cc: sotiris@hermesnetwork.com; wg-review@dnso.org; 
> gusion@gusion.com; YJ
> Park (MINC)
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH
> 
> 
> 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