Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 06:48 PM 1/15/01, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>This is an important point. Important enough for a more formal poll.
>With permission of the Chair, I will put up four more polling questions in
>the Booth:

I'd like to see these, with the following addition, and a question on 
phrasing answered first.

Since the motion referenced in the "Clean Motion" thread has been made and 
seconded, I believe the first question should be whether or not the WG 
wants to adopt that motion formally.

>1. Should in your opinion the constituency structure of the DNSO be 
>abandoned altogether?
>  Yes/No/ No opinion

Do you mean here "the concept of formal constituencies" or "the election of 
the NC by constituencies"? Those questions might lead to different results, 
so phrasing is important.

>2. If the Constituency structure is retained, do you favour the addition of
>an Individual DN Holder constituency?
>YES/NO
>
>3. If the  Constituency structure is retained, do you favour  a reduction
>of NC seats belonging to the existing constituencies and redistribution of
>seats in order to more evenly balance opposing interests?
>YES/NO/ other (please specify)
>
>4. If the Constituency structure is abandoned, how would you want to
>represent the Individual Domain Name holders on the Names Council?
>
>-not at all
>-turn the GA into an electoral college for the NC
>-other: please specify on the comment line
>(multiple choice possible)



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