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

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

2,5,6,7 many constituencies

I hope that we can add value to this constituency report by exploring the method of establishing more constituencies in the future.  I want this
report to stand alone and only wish it had stronger language, so I address this issue through the above categories.

A) By breaking down the membership into finer tuned constituencies we can better facilitate working groups within those subject.
B) By establishing a strong standardized procedure for admitting or discharging a constituency we can adapt with the times and areas of highest
concern and interest.
C) By allowing for constituencies that can target a narrower interest we can create a more effective outreach in specific areas.

Sincerely,

Greg Burton wrote:

> 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
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