Ellen and all,

  We agree with Ellen here as well, and we should also reach out to other
lists and Stakeholders, which I don't believe that Ellens Poll did but ours
did (See results below these comments, which I have also posted previously).

  Ellens questions suggested below are good ones as a good "Straw Poll"
to use as a benchmark for where opinion is on some issues, but not
quite in depth enough, however we find no problem in it and I will be
taking it on these lists.  I will also be passing it along to some of
our staff for participation to other channels and lists for further and broader

participation.

Ellen Rony wrote:

> Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
> >> Is there any way, architecturally, to do
> >> better for discussion of the issues than what we have now?
>
> Eric Weisberg wrote:
> >
> >Yes, if our purpose is to arrive at conclusions and take action.
> >If that were the case, we would have to elect a moderator and take
> >votes.
>
> I prefer the approach of taking a poll, not a vote, since the subscriber
> list is not the same as an ICANN membership.  Polls are informal, non
> binding, and speedy.  They can be used to guage the subscriber sentiment on
> an issue.  For example, I just ran a poll on the domain policy list (405
> members) asking whether or not InterNIC should charge for domain name
> registration at the time the application for a name is submitted.  The poll
> had 11.4% response rate, running more than 2 to 1 in favor of prepayment.
> (See http://www.domainhandbook.com/poll-0199.html for specific stats.)
>
> I think the Berkman Center would have an appropriate role as the poll
> taker, and people should be allowed to respond to the list or privately.  I
> believe polls attract a higher response rate when they are made available
> through mailing lists than when we are obligated to go to a website and
> sign on.  It's akin to a detour in our cybertravel.
>
> So my recommendation is to come up with occasional questions and put them
> out for response.  In the poll mentioned above, I deleted all duplicates
> and made no attempt to verify votes since the weight of the DNS world
> didn't rely on the outcome.   Polls can be concatenated with other
> identical polls on other lists (so long as respondents aren't allowed to
> respond more than once to the same question).
>
> If you like the polling idea, my first two question would be:
>
> SHOULD ICANN HOLD BOARD MEETINGS THAT ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC?
>
>         [x]  YES
>         [   ]  NO
>
> SHOULD THE SOs BE REQUIRED TO INCORPORATE?
>
>         [   ]  YES
>         [x]  NO

====  Adding the following poll questions=========

SHOULD THERE BE "CONSTITUENCIES" IN ANY SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION
BYLAWS STRUCTURE TO REPRESENT SPECIAL INTERESTS?

      [  ] YES
      [X] NO

SHOULD ANY AN ALL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS OF A DNSO REQUIRE
A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE GENERAL OR AT LARGE MEMBERSHIP
BEFORE ENACTMENT AND SUBMISSION TO THE ICANN?

      [X] YES
      [  ]  NO

SHOULD ANY POLICY DECISIONS OF CONSIDERATIONS OF THE ICANN
BE SUBJECT TO MAJORITY VOTE BY THE GENERAL OR AT LARGE
MEMBERSHIP BY MAJORITY VOTE BEFORE ENACTMENT?

       [X] YES
       [  ]  NO

>
>
> Ellen Rony                                                     Co-author
> The Domain Name Handbook                   http://www.domainhandbook.com
> ================================  // ===================================
> ISBN 0879305150                *="  ____ /             +1 (415) 435-5010
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]             \     )                    Tiburon, CA
>                                    //  \\   "Carpe canine"
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ___END____________________________________________

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________

Reply via email to