DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Structure Taskforce - feedback needed on report

Version 8 of the Structure Taskforce is online at

I need to signify back to the TF on behalf of the GA any specific
positions on behalf of the GA we would like included in the report and
also a position on the main recommendation that the at large would
also have three seats on the Names Council as a de facto individuals
constituency in return for acting through the DNSO on domain name
policy issues rather than competing with the DNSO in this area.

In terms of specific positions it has been my reading of the GA that
the consensus expressed here has been for:
- nine instead of six board members
- no linking of at large eligibility to domain name holdership
- a low (if any) membership fee
- a low (if any) threshold/quorum for the at large to be recognised
(approx 1,000 max?)

Please advise if you disagree with the above.

I am at this stage unable to gauge consensus on the main
recommendation and also welcome feedback or even a simple straw poll
yes/no sent directly to me

Do you prefer, in terms of policy advice on domain name issues (does
not effect advise on other issues such as bylaws changes) the at large
members to
a) compete with the DNSO and advise the Board directly, leaving it to
the Board to chose whose advice they go with
b) retaining the DNSO as the main advising body on domain name issues
and having the at large perform the role of an individual
constituencies within the DNSO (3 seats on Names Council but does not
advise Board directly on domain name issues) as well as its other at
large roles

There are pros and cons for each of the options above.  An argument
for (a) is at (sorry am trying to link to post by Danny Younger in
ALSC archives but can not get in - can Danny post a direct link to his
post opposing the at large working through the DNSO on domain name
policy issues) and for (B) at

There is a segment in the report for "minority/constituency views/ and
I would like to be able to post something by Friday if I can get a
clear impression from the GA.  If I can not I will note these is
significant split opinion on the proposal.


ICQ 29964527
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>