Re: [wg-review] 4,5,6, WGs, Standardized Procedures & Education

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 03:33 PM 2/15/01, Eric Dierker wrote:
>"to establish a study to identify specific core issues that need to be
>addressed in order to determine if and how to establish an individual
>domain name holders constituency."
>
>This working group and the review task force basically concluded that a
>IDNH's constituency should be formed.

The figures are consistently over 75% in favor of it (not counting 
abstentions) at two physical GA meetings (Yokohama and Marina Del Rey) and 
in three polls done in the WG here. The original plan, as far as I can tell 
from the tapes of Yokohama, was for the task force and wg to combine the 
question of an individual constituency and DNSO review.

In other words, seven months ago the BoD was told that the review task 
force was going to do what it's now recommending be done by someone else, 
later.

In Marina Del Rey the motion was made and passed during the GA meeting to 
create a WG in order to create that constituency. A motion was made and 
passed here to do the same thing. Nothing has happened, or I now believe 
will happen, until Melbourne at the earliest, and only if the BoD does 
something directly. Up until yesterday, I still had some hope that the NC 
would create the WG to deal with the issue, as they promised the Board in 
Yokohama. I no longer believe that they will, despite the best wishes and 
efforts for that outcome by some of the NC members.



Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com

--
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