Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

The concept of a bi-cameral NC appears reasonable.  One group with clear
agendas and another with wide base individual voting.

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 09:11 17/01/01 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
>
> >Thus, if my understanding of all of this is correct, the motions to
> >abolish the constituencies, are in fact, motions to abolish the Names
> >Council, and, to transfer its role, completely, to the General Assembly
> >(which apparently does not exist, from the ICANN orgainsational
> >structure chart).
> >
> >Can this please be confirmed, by someone who knows and understands the
> >situation?
> >
>
> Abolishing the NC would make the DNSO unworkable.  An NC is needed to
> formulate policy for approval by the ICANN Board. The Board cannot do this
> without input from the stateholders.
>
> What could perhaps be a realistic and stable solution is to create a
> bi-cameral NC.
> An "upper Chamber" , consisting of constituency (including an IDNHC)
> representatives and a "lower Chamber" elected directly by the GA.
>
> Policy formulations would then have to pass both Chambers.
> Less opportunity for railroading too.
>
>
>
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
> the Cyberspace Association and
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> Elected representative.
> http://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
begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard