Re: [wg-review] small immediate improvements to the NC
This is way to humble you need full seats and that is a fact. What else are
they going to do with them, keep them and loose ICANN? Sotiris I will not hear
of this compromise position.
On the procedural end it is not in the purview of this report. so leave it out,
I hate process getting in the way of progress, but if you must add it reflect
the WG consensus and go all the way.
Joop, How are you anyway I guess we have been in different hemispheres, god
Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Did you mention my humble proposal for immediate improvement on the status
> quo by the NC co-opting or accepting 3 candidates from a number of
> Individual Domain Name Holders' representatives elected by preference vote
> in the GA, to sit as observers at all proceedings?
> In this way the NC will be enlarged by 3 seats, without voting rights, but
> with a voice to argue and an ear to listen.
> This will set the right tone for when the Board finally decides on the
> petition for full constituency rights, made by representations of
> Individual Domain Name Holders in Berlin ,1999 and followed up by a written
> petition, formally handed over to the ICANN office in Marina del Rey ,
> signed by these signatories: www.idno.org/petition.htm
> I hope this will happen in Stockholm, via a motion for a Board resolution
> by Andy M.-M and our own Karl Auerbach.
> Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
> The Polling Booth
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html