RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Roeland,
All of "us", ie experienced folks and smart newcomers alike, are in full
agreement from the very first day: but we face the "consensus" NC
expected, made of documents and confusion where people repeat ad
nauseam they want a constituency for their own use, helping this way
the constitucny system to survive.

Now this has been reported the usual "new demand": you will not make
them change their miind. They have been trapped once more. Most of them
know it or start realizing. What is sad is that the first thread on individual
domain name owners is the constituency system which protects their
opponents and does not permit the ccTLD to be present at the BoD, while
many of them are idnholders of ccTLDs....

It was a lost battle. We known its rules. May be we won a few things: we
have to asses that. There is all this WG and there is the reality. Let
concentrate on the reality and on ICANN survival.

Jefsey



ON << 19:53 16/01/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>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

--
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