Re: [wg-review] Are we dead?

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

At 14:57 28/01/01 -0700, Greg Burton wrote: 
>
> At 08:58 PM 1/27/01, Babybows.com wrote:
>>
>> Still awaiting a clarification& did the Names Council terminate the Review
>> Working Group?
>
>
> No, the names council did NOT terminate the Working Group. At the moment it
> seems more likely that the WG is terminating itself by lack of response on
> substantive matters. That's a shame, because not only did people say they
> wanted to continue, they wanted a structure and the ability to focus on
> specific issues. They asked for rules, and clear procedures. They wanted a
> majority vote to be a majority vote, and not called consenus. Thanks to a
lot
> of volunteer work, we have those things in place. Joanna Lane did a
wonderful
> website for organizing our material, the polling booth is working
>
> I'm very puzzled by this. Any clarification from members of the WG -
publicly
> or privately - would be most welcome.


Greg,

Speaking for myself, I am just very busy. Other contributors may be too.
I will be offline for a few days, but after that I would like to re-visit and
elaborate on my original proposal (see list of dec 30, 2000) for a re-division
of the voting power of the existing constituencies on the NC and the creation
of  a big Name Holders Constituency (NHC) that would hold 9 seats and consist
of the Biz.Name  Holders, the Non Commercial Name Holders and the Individual
Name Holders.

The other constituencies together should also hold 9 seats and the Chair
should
hold the balance.

I would at least like to see this proposal included in the report.



  
--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