Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 09:11 17/01/01 +0800, Bret Busby wrote:

>Thus, if my understanding of all of this is correct, the motions to
>abolish the constituencies, are in fact, motions to abolish the Names
>Council, and, to transfer its role, completely, to the General Assembly
>(which apparently does not exist, from the ICANN orgainsational
>structure chart).
>
>Can this please be confirmed, by someone who knows and understands the
>situation?
>

Abolishing the NC would make the DNSO unworkable.  An NC is needed to
formulate policy for approval by the ICANN Board. The Board cannot do this
without input from the stateholders.

What could perhaps be a realistic and stable solution is to create a
bi-cameral NC.
An "upper Chamber" , consisting of constituency (including an IDNHC)
representatives and a "lower Chamber" elected directly by the GA.

Policy formulations would then have to pass both Chambers.
Less opportunity for railroading too.



 

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

--
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