|
In the report from the DNSO
Review Task Force (v 3.0) C. Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency it is stated
that "...while there is not consensus on the need for an IDNH Constituency, there
has been sufficient discussion to support suggest [sic] the next step is to explore
its establishment." is not reflective of the extensive discussion and overwhelming
positive conclusion that there is need for such a constituency. The same report's
recommendation on this is to "...establish a study to identify specific core issues
that need to be addressed in order to determine if and how to establish an IDNH constituency."
sounds like a move which could be similar to a move to "table" or "send to committee"
which could all too easily be that last that is heard of it, or a return of some
version of "not feasible" or other negative finding. The WG-Review sent a recommendation
to establish a framework for, or facilitate the formation of, an IDNH (I don't recall
the precise wording). The idea is that the need is there and is not being,
or likely to be filled by the GA or the At Large Membership. I would hope that
the BoD and the NC will take the original submissions by the WG-Review, along with
the observations by such BoD and NC members as were monitoring the group's mailing
list into account as they make the decisions on this very important matter. Thank
you--Phil King in Butte MT (Individual domain name holder and at Large Member of
ICANN)
|
|
|