Re: [wg-review] small immediate improvements to the NC
At 20:40 6/04/01 -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
>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
>of this compromise position.
Yes of course we need full seats--more than that, we need a *balance*, so
that when things are controversial it can be the quality of the arguments
that win the day, not the brute majority numbers.
But full seats will take time. The NC asked for input on immediate
We have given them little on this score.
Here is something that can be implemented immediately.
The GA can have elections for Individuals' representatives on the NC, say,
starting two weeks from now, as soon as the new Chairs are seated.
>On the procedural end it is not in the purview of this report. so leave it
>I hate process getting in the way of progress, but if you must add it reflect
>the WG consensus and go all the way.
Huh? Is this not the report on immediate DNSO improvents that the NC wants
to see before the 16th of april?
Yes, it should be carefully noted, as Sotiris did already in part 2 , that
the consensus of the WG would certainly not want to stop at permanent
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
The Polling Booth
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html