|
Vikash Patel ( ) (Status Report, 9:31:15 AM, #1013) By simply reading the comments on this forum, anyone can easily see that the majority of people favor IOD for .web. Personally, I feel that IOD has done and will continue to do a remarkable job running the .web registry. According to comments on the public comment board, several letters have been written to many influential people regarding the assignment of .web to IOD. If people feel this strongly about the future of the Internet and how IOD can promote competition, then the clear choice is IOD for .web. Thanks! Vikash Patel |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) (Debate on Issues, 10:42:23 AM, #1016) There have been repeated attempts for individual constituancy. It has been ignored. |
|
Joop Teernstra (idno) (Debate on Issues, 10:50:43 AM, #1017) Has anybody given an expose of where the IDNO constituency building effort now stands? That representatives have been elected? That a Charter has been ratified? |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) remote participants (Debate on Issues, 11:11:10 AM, #1019) Again, we are here and would like a voice, please |
|
Daniel Howarth (JapansOnline.com) If IOD don't get the .web (Debate on Issues, 11:16:07 AM, #1020) If IOD don't get the .web and another registra gets it, there clearly will be a court case about it. Why dismiss IOD now, you will be saving time in the future. Sorry just put throughing my point. Regards Mr. Daniel Howarth |
|
Chris Kwak (Bear Stearns) Resolution 4. (Debate on Issues, 11:49:12 AM, #1021) For resolution 4. |
|
blaise ave-lallemant vote (Debate on Issues, 11:49:51 AM, #1022) favor |
|
blaise ave-lallemant vote (Debate on Issues, 11:50:43 AM, #1023) Resolution 2: favor |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) vote (Debate on Issues, 11:52:08 AM, #1024) Favor #1 Favor #2 |
|
blaise ave-lallemant vote (Debate on Issues, 11:52:33 AM, #1025) Resolution 3: opposed |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) vote #3 (Debate on Issues, 11:53:04 AM, #1026) Favor |
|
Rebeka Goldberg ( ) (Debate on Issues, 11:54:13 AM, #1027) Proposal: Let the At-Large Members vote on the new Tld's |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) Vote #4 (Debate on Issues, 11:54:17 AM, #1028) Against |
|
blaise ave-lallemant vote res#4 (Debate on Issues, 11:54:35 AM, #1029) Resolution 4: opposed |
|
Marcia Arbott ( ) #1,#2,#3,#4 (Debate on Issues, 12:04:01 PM, #1030) |
|
Marcia Arbott ( ) #1,#2,#3,#4 (Debate on Issues, 12:04:52 PM, #1031) As a remote participant, I want my vote counted for #1 and #2. --Marcia Arbott |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (ICBTollFreeNews.com) vote (Debate on Issues, 12:11:11 PM, #1032) I vote yes to Resolution #1, that the new TLD decision be postponed until the new At Large board members are seated. I vote yes to Resolution #3, that the new TLD decision be postponed until all the applicants have had time to respond to the Staff Report. (I expect this vote to be considered timely as no count was taken 'live' among the remote participants, during the actual count.) |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) (Debate on Issues, 12:12:56 PM, #1033) I heartily agree that the holdover board members should resign immediately. In addition, those four seats should be filled by the second choice in the elections for four of the five regions. |
|
Judith Oppenheimer (ICBTollFreeNews.com) Froomkin's proposal (Debate on Issues, 12:18:42 PM, #1034) I support Michael Froomkin's proposal that the over-extended board members take their leave now, as promised in sworn testimony before Congress and the U.S. public. I do NOT support the CDT's misguided proposal #2. (I expect this vote to be considered timely as no count was taken 'live' among the remote participants, during the actual count.) |
|
vishnu das (ave-lallemant technologies, inc) (Debate on Issues, 12:19:26 PM, #1035) abstain |
|
vishnu das (ave-lallemant technologies, inc) (Debate on Issues, 12:19:56 PM, #1036) favor resolution 2 |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) vote (Debate on Issues, 12:20:05 PM, #1037) resolutoin 1: Favor |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) vote (Debate on Issues, 12:20:41 PM, #1038) reslotion 2 : Favor |
|
Leah Gallegos (TLD Lobby) remote participants not counted (Debate on Issues, 12:22:49 PM, #1039) We have repeatedly attempted to vote as participants and have been ignored. |
|
Joop Teernstra (idno) DNSO review/reform (Debate on Issues, 2:36:45 PM, #1053) DNSO review. It is not surprising that the existing "constituencies" have not shown much enthousiasm to Review their existing dominance. The old Interin Board has created the DNSO structure. It makes no sense that any other body than the Board itself,duly elected, takes responsibility for a new DNSO structure. |
All times are LA (GMT -8)
This file is automatically generated.