RE: [wg-review] 11.IDNH Motion 1

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Chris,
Great job. May I suggest this moves to subject heading: 11. IDNH Motion 1
and that each paragraph has an ID, so we can keep track of who said what as
it is passed around and not lose the original motion in amongst them. I have
added David's name to his comments. It might not work, but let's see.
Joanna


On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:10:05 -0800, Chris McElroy wrote:

>I am not making this  a motion yet, and would like to see others reword and
>edit what I have written here until we have something that can be presented
>as an opinion we have consensus on.;

[David] Excellent.

[MOTION]>The WG Review has reached a consensus

[ David] As one member is admantly opposed we willhave to call it a near
consensus assuming there are not other contrary views.

>[MOTION] that a new Constituency be added to represent Individual Domain
Name
>Registrants. This WG is not going to address how to implement this new
>Constituency, nor is it going to propose what group should represent them
or
>how it is to be formed. We only present that one should be formed or
>selected within six months.

[David] If there is support for it I would 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.

[David] Some may argue that the DNSO should have no say in the structure in
that it is up to constituencies to totally self organise and petition
the Board.  I believe a case can be made that an individuals'
constituency is somewhat unique as oppossed to others which have
considerable more resources through existing businesses and
organisations participating in them.  Therefore I think there is a
good case for a DNSO WG to work and propose a structure which will be
able to gain widespread support.

[MOTION] >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 to begin with. We further hope that you would put this matter
on
>the agenda as a top priority and seek public comment on how this
>constituency shall be formed and how it will contribute to the ICANN
Budget.

[David] Yep.

[MOTION]>There has been suggestions that an amount come directly from the
>registration of domain names proportionate to the share of expenses this
new
>constituency must pay.

[David] I would possibly change this to "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
negiotated with those constituencies."

DPF
________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
--
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

--
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