[council] Fw: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisignagreements
Thanks for your well-considered suggestion. I support Options 1 and 2, but do not think that Option 1 would be effective, given the obvious desire of ICANN staff to circumvent the DNSO when convenient. They know we are concerned. They don't care.
I would take careful note of who on the Board voted for and against the proposal. We can keep this in mind when we elect the next DNSO representatives. We should also take seriously those working for a more representative Board via more rapid implementation of at-large elections.
More significant than either of those, however, would be for the NC to be more pro-active.
Why don't we start a task force _now_ on ORG and NET divestiture. This group could develop authoritative policy recommendations regarding the status of ORG, and the seletion of a registry operator for NET?
--Milton Mueller, Noncommercial constituency
>>> "Erica Roberts" <email@example.com> 04/02/01 08:02AM >>>
As I see it, we have three options before us:
1. Write to the Board reiterating our expression of concern about the lack
of due process;
2. Propose a formal policy requiring an appropriate consultation process
on all issues which are viewed by two or more DNSO constituencies as
involving policy issues;
3: Do nothing
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html