[wg-review] Straw Poll Results

[Sotiris <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Results for Straw Poll: IC Recommendation

1) The current proposal for recommendation of an Individual's
Constituency in response to Resolutions 01.28 & 01.29 is generally an
adequate reflection of widespread sentiment within the WG Review to
date.

a)Support: 18 Total

Larry Molnar <Larry@cmgww.com>
brianappleby@netscape.net
"bukko" <bukko@od2.com>
"Marcia Lynn" <marcialynn@att.net>
FRupp@aol.com
"rob j" <junivers@sprint.ca>
Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>
Luca Muscar&udiagr; <muscara@unive.it>
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>
"Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>
Salt <salt@spiced.com>
Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
"Chris White" <whitec@earthlink.net>
Andrew Moulden <andrew@FoolStop.com>
Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
"Ira Goldstein" igoldste@mum.neric.org
"David Farrar" <david@farrar.com>
"Mr. Zafiris" <gregzaf@home.com>

b)Reject: 0 Total


c)Abstain: 0 Total


Comments:

"rob j" <junivers@sprint.ca> wrote:
>This seems to me the least disruptive way to go from "bad" to
"not-so-bad."
The old folks won't get too nervous, and the kids will begin to see
reason
supplanting idiocy/fear/greed in their parents more often.



2) The recommendation for "dissolution" of the DNSO should supercede the

recommendation calling for an Individual's Constituency at this point in
time.


a)Support: 0 Total


b)Reject: 7 Total

Luca Muscar&udiagr; <muscara@unive.it>
"Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>
"Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>
Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
"Ira Goldstein" igoldste@mum.neric.org
"David Farrar" <david@farrar.com>
"Mr. Zafiris" <gregzaf@home.com>


c)Abstain: 9 Total

Larry Molnar <Larry@cmgww.com>
"bukko" <bukko@od2.com>
"Marcia Lynn" <marcialynn@att.net>
"rob j" <junivers@sprint.ca>
Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>
Salt <salt@spiced.com>
"Chris White" <whitec@earthlink.net>
Andrew Moulden <andrew@FoolStop.com>
Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>


Comments:

brianappleby@netscape.net wrote:
> I think the two positions now at issue are not mutually exclusive,
they are
suggestions which apply to different circumstances: if it is not
disolved then it
should be fixed.  If it can't be fixed, then maybe it should be
fundamentally
reborn or replaced.  The IC will help to make it better for sure!
I think this position was not well followed-through in the discussions,
not fully
explored.  If it is stated as a 'major re-organization' rather than
dissolution,
it might be more relective of the underlying sentiment, i.e. it can't be
fixed so
why try, it needs to be re-built from scratch.  Again, I think the DNSO
has been
largely ignored and weak.  The root causes of many problems associated
with the DNSO
are caused elsewhere, and therefore cannot be fixed by trying to fix the
DNSO.  But
it is a noble effort to try and you are doing a good job, keep it up!.

"rob j" <junivers@sprint.ca> wrote:
>"Karl's recommendation appeals directly to my sense of cleanliness,
rectitude
and propriety, and I believe it *should* be done, but slowly, and not in
the
disruptive "chopping of heads," as has been portrayed. There are still
too
few around the world, IMHO, who both trust the USG enough to participate
in
this and many other processes, and understand the issues the DNSO was
set up
to address (pardon the trailing pun) .

We obviously need the benefit of every available insight.

At this time I believe the DNSO is best rebuilt from within with an
Individual's Constituency--and clear guidance from without--on the basis
of
simple survival. It's already become largely irrelevant--after all, the
Internet was designed to route around problems, and as much as the DNSO
(or
ICANN, for that matter) is a problem, they are simply avoided.

So to me, the DNSO must adapt much more quickly so as to try to catch up
to
the world (and to its own mandate). I think adding the IC is faster than

rebuilding the entire DNSO according to the facts we have in hand
(instead
of what we were expecting to find twenty years ago), and still opens the

door to the more-effective management of domain name issues."</>

***************

General comment:

Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz> wrote:
I appreciate that this poll is held now , but IMHO it
should have been held immediately after the two earlier polls, as the
polling results then  were mutually exclusive.

***************


Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
 Working 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