Resolution on Develop Official Position on .ORG Divesture by Vany Martinez (was before) Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Resolution on ORG Divestiture

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales]

Dear Fellows:

I will modify my previoius proposal in order for more clarification:
---------------
a.  Whereas the Names Council members of the NCDNHC submited a document
as "First Views" of the NCDNHC
    about .ORG Divesture on June 28, 2001 which can be found in
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00519.html

b.  Whereas the document mentioned above remains still open to
modifications, deletions, additions refinements or additional comments
as the note sent by NCDNHC Names Council members states in an
introductory letter of such document sent to the Names Council

c.  Whereas points 2 and 6 of the document mentioned above remains still
open for discussion

d.  Whereas the Names Council .ORG Task Force has submited for its Draft
Statement of Policy (v 3.3, October 2, 2001) for public comments, which
can be found in: 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00142.html

e.  Whereas Milton Muller has proposed a Resolution on .ORG divesture
which can be found in
http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2001-October/000453.html

The NCDNHC resolves

1.  Conduct in the NCDNHC f2f meeting in Marina del Rey scheduled on
November 12, 2001, a votation on the document titled "First Views" sent
to the Names Council.  Follow online discussion on the points 2 and 6,
and other issues on .ORG divesture that may members be interested in
address (if there is any), of the document the same document "First
Views" sent to the Names Council, in order to complete such document and
conduct an online votation in an "statement per statement" basis once
the document is completed.  Timeframes and Schedules will be determined
by AdCom

2. Apply the results of the votation on the document titled "First
Views", to the document "Draft Statement of Policy (v 3.3, October 2,
2001)" and to any resolution proposal regarding the same subject in such
common issues addressed by both documents and conduct a votation, in the
NCDNHC f2f meeting in Marina del Rey scheduled on November 12, 2001, on
such issues that are not addressed in the "Draft Statement of Policy (v
3.3, October 2, 2001)" and any other proposal on the same subject, in a
"statement by statement" basis. Repeat the same in an online votation.
Timeframes and Schedules will be determined by AdCom.

3.  After all votations in NCDNHC f2f meeting in Marina del Rey on
November 12, 2001, regarding the subject of .ORG divesture, submit all
the statements supported and not supported statements in behalf of the
attendees to the NCDNHC f2f meeting to the relevant(s) person(s) and/or
group(s), all together in one document. 

4.  After all online votations within NCDNHC members regarding .ORG
divesture, submit all the supported and not supported statements in
behalf of the NCDNHC to the relevant(s) person(s) and/or groups, all
together in one document as the official and formal position of the
NCDNHC on .ORG Divesture.

5.  If Names Council and/or Task Forces, Commitees, Working Groups, etc,
runs any votation in f2f meetings, online, teleconferences, or by any 
other means, all members of the NCDNHC Names Council and Non-NC members
that represents the NCDNHC in Task Forces, Commitees and Working Groups
might reflects and vote according to the official positions developed by
the NCDNHC in the issue voted, and in any iisue not dealt by the NCDNHC
yet, such NC members and/or Non-NC members serving, might address such
subject to the NCDNHC in order for NCDNHC members consideration.

6.  The NCDNHC will discuss the issues that didn't get the support of
the NCDNHC member in online votation in the subject of .ORG Divesture in
order to provide new input on the subject of .ORG Divesture that will
lead to propose solutions and/or new positions "in positive" of such
items where members of the NCDNHC found problems (i.e. if the statement
of .ORG being an sponsored and unrestricted didn't get support, then
develop a new input "in positive" that could read: the NCDNHC supports
sponsored and restricted, or chartered, or whatever the members of the
NCDNHC concludes).

7.  The NCDNHC will conduct in the future votations online in any NCDNHC
relevant issue subject to discussion when timeframes are not enough to
wait until the next f2f meeting (i.e. Proposals of Resolutions comming
from other constituencies and forwarded to the Names Council to be voted
anytime before next f2f meeting).


-----------
Any comments on this?  Also I request all the statements in this
proposal of resolution can be voted statement by statement (from 1 to
6).

Best Regards
Vany  



Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> Vany and others:
> I'm still having trouble understanding what
> the "argument" is.
> 
> It looks to me like we agree fundamentally on what
> to do. You want to have a partitioned vote on the
> ORG proposition. We will. There is a resolution on ORG
> for the MdR meeting. At the meeting, you can
> propose to vote on it paragraph by paragraph.
> 
> Then we can have a discussion of those different
> parts, and put together a final position. This is
> easier and better to do f2f.
> 
> Then, for those members who cannot attend
> the meeting, we have our standard procedure
> of further discussing and voting on the
> resolution online.
> 
> That is the agreed way to formulate a
> position that the whole constituency supports.
> That is what we have been planning to do
> all along.
> 
> Is there anything wrong with this method?
> 
> As for the ORG Task Force report, any member
> can make comments on that now. There are
> only two days left.
> 
> MM
> 
> >>> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany at sdnp.org.pa> 10/26/01 06:05PM >>>
> 1.  The NCDNHC might finish the work initiated in
> the subject of .ORG and vote on such document
> statement by statement in order to develop a final
> and official position in behalf of the NCDNHC.
> 
> 2.  The NCDNHC might also run a vote, statement by
> statement, of the document sent
> for public comments by the .ORG Task
> Force instead voting in the document as a whole since
> it would limit the scope of NCDNHC input regarding such
> document.
> 
> 3.  The NCDNHC might also prepares its own
> statement regarding such items or
> statements that were voted "NO" by majority and
>  propose futher proposals in how such item
> and/or statement should be implemented.

-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail:  vany at sdnp.org.pa