>From: Gabriela Vazquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: DNSO-ENRED >Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 11:27:52 -0400 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > >On behalf of the Forum of Nets of Latin America and the Caribbean = >(ENRED) we manifest our adhesion to the draft of Paris, for the = >following reasons: > >* We find positive that the quantity of constituencies is not specified. = >It allows that the diverse organizations can conform a constituency and = >beingrecognized as such, according to groups of specific interests. > >* In order to reach the appropriate balances we are agree about no = >settling down a number defaulted of members in the Council of the DNSO, = >and that it will depend on the quantity of constituencies that it exist. > >* Apropos the geographical representation, the position is pertinent, = >since it points out that the three members of each group who integrate = >the Council have to be of three different regions. That implies that = >from its beginning no region will have but of 33% of the members of the = >Council. Also, if after having conformed the Council, there is some = >region that doesn't have members, then a delegate it could be added of = >those regions. This solves in a simple and effective way the problem of = >the geographical diversity. > >* It is important that the ccTLDs have some way to change the operative = >problems, and the mechanism of veto of the ccTLDs where the votes of the = >ccTLDs is required to approve a modification in the politicians of = >registrations, goes in this sense, nevertheless, we consider necessary = >to deepen in this topic. > >* We agree in the DNSO will be an advisory Council of the board of = >ICANN, since >otherwise a heavy and expensive structure would be created. > >* We also recommend adding the following point for their discussion: > >* To elaborate contracts between the ccTLDs and the ICANN, without = >paying, would >give guarantees to the both parts, because anyone could take = >attributions that are not foreseen in the contract, and also, it would = >give bigger guarantees to the community.=20 > >*It is important to specify which type of decisions required special >majorities of the ccTLDs; which are those special majorities, and if in >those majorities they are included to all the registers or alone to the >ccTLDs. > >Finally, we are open to support the proposal that it arises of the = >consent and if it considers the indicated points, as well as any other = >of interest for AL&C. > >Luis Eliecer Cadenas >President >ENRED >=09 > =09 > =09 > =09 > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't bother me. I'm living happily ever after.
