RE: [council] For the April 10 teleconference

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

Milton,

I agree with Ken and some others here. It is fine to discuss with the gTLD
(Roger) what steps might be taken to start the seating of the gTLD vacant
seats (and one that Roger noted in his note is not a new issue), but not to
revise/revisit the charter of the gTLD constituency. That's between the
constituency and the Board.

I'd like to suggest we focus on the work at hand over which the NC has
responsibility.

Theresa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Digitel - Ken Stubbs
> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2001 5:58 PM
> To: Milton Mueller
> Cc: council@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [council] For the April 10 teleconference
>
>
> Milton ...
>
> you might want to re-visit the ICANN bylaws again ...
>
> Under the ICANN bylaws the names council has no role in
> facilitating this .
> It's strictly up to the constituencies, supervised ONLY by the Board.
>
> ken stubbs
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
> To: <kstubbs@digitel.net>
> Cc: <council@dnso.org>
> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 10:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [council] For the April 10 teleconference
>
>
> Ken,
> Please be serious about this. We do not have a gtld constituency. We have
> one company.
>
> Everyone recognizes that the basis for the gtld constituency must be
> redefined. Even Verisign people,  with whom I discussed it at the
> Marina del
> Rey General Assembly, understand this.
>
> My note is intended to get the discussion of this started. I'd be
> interested
> in your response to the substantive issues posed and look forward to it.
>
>