Re: [council] Some initial thoughts on GNSO review

[Thomas Keller <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All good questions Bruce. One more that comes to my mind is whether it
would be a good idea to align the bylaws and voting procedures of the
constituencies to make the policy process more predictable in terms
of timing.

Best,

tom

Am 03.08.2005 schrieb Bruce Tonkin:
> Hello All,
> 
> Some of the questions I have in terms of the GNSO constituency structure
> are:
> 
> - should some constituencies merge to form larger constituencies with
> more participation?
> 
> - should there be additional constituencies to cover viewpoints that are
> not currently being addressed  
> (e.g application developers - such as browsers, email that are affected
> by GNSO decisions)?
> 
> - how should companies that have a variety of interests engage with the
> GNSO structure?
> (e.g Melbourne IT is a registrar, provides other Internet services, is a
> business user of the Internet, is concerned about protection of its
> intellectual property, and provides services to assist corporates to
> protect their online brands - thus it could conceivably join 3 of the
> constituencies.    There are staff (and divisions of staff) at Melbourne
> IT that would have different interests, and thus may want to become
> involved in constituencies that match their interest.)
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 

Gruss,

tom

(__)        
(OO)_____  
(oo)    /|\     A cow is not entirely full of
  | |--/ | *    milk some of it is hamburger!
  w w w  w