Re: [wg-review] IDNH Report #1 - Adoption text for vote

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

Preliminary Report on a constituency for individuals - WG-Review Adoption Copy

ADOPTED MOTION to CREATE WORKING GROUP
-------------------------------------
A formal vote was held on the motion below and passed  as follows

Total number of voters: 22

NO                        4     18.1818%
YES                    18      81.8182%


Motion by Chris McElroy & David Farrar

The WG Review has reached a near consensus that a new Constituency be added
to represent Individual Domain Name Registrants. This WG has not addressed
the matter of how to implement this new Constituency, neither has it proposed
what group should represent them, nor how it is to be formed. We only
present that one should be formed or selected within six months.We specifically
propose a dedicated working group be set up to come up with specific proposals
and options  on the structure and functioning of the constituency.

We ask that this process be expedited in this way because we believe it to
be an oversight not to have included them in the process from the beginning.
Furthermore, we hope this matter would be put on the agenda as a top priority
and that public comment will be sought on how this constituency shall be 
formed.

How an individual domain name registrants constituency shall contribute to
the funding of ICANN and the DNSO needs to be examined by the dedicated
working group. There is a view that such registrants already indirectly
fund ICANN and DNSO through their domain name fees which largely fund the
Registrar, Registry and ccTLD constituencies and this should be evaluated
and negotiated with those constituencies."
<end of motion text>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polling information on the question
This is a preliminary report has been submitted for adoption by WG-Review.
While the poll material is public and reflects as much objectivity as 
possible, the opinions and
conclusions drawn are the views of the author, and cannot be called "the 
results of the group" until the
group has discussed and ratified them and any changes that may be incorporated.

Material comes from group discussions and two polls - one run through
pollcat.com, and one run in a voting booth  designed for more secure results.

Caveat adapted from a post by Harald Alvestrand:
"There is a well known form of "consensus" building called "last man 
standing" - with interest in this area on the order of hundreds of 
thousands, and actual list membership in the +100s, a poll answered by a 
small group of  people based on an extremely busy mailing list needs a 
little justification before being taken as ground rules for further work.

That said, we believe the poll result is fairly representative of the 
people speaking up in this discussion, and probably a fair reflection of 
the feelings of a lot of people who have touched or participated in this 
process."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the questions referred to this WG by the task force is the question:

Should there be a constituency for individuals?

Of the 31 respondents, 29 answered "yes". In a similar poll run in the more
secure polling booth, 37 of 40 respondents answered affirmitavely. Due to the
volume of material presented on this issue, it was requested and approved as
it's own topic in the report format by the WG.

-----------
Greg Burton, Co-chair
WG-Review



--
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