Messages marked with have been read to the assembled group.

Dennis Schaefer (Individual) (Status Report, 7/13/00 12:25:49 PM, #824) Please poll the audience on this motion. Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA

Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) At-Large membership concerns (Discussion, 7/13/00 12:20:20 PM, #823) Question to DNSO, Why after aome folks have subscribed and recieved confirmation to the At-Large membership are they (myself included) not able to participate because their password is not working? When can this small problem be corrected? Why after several E-Mails to the At-Large membership "Info" E-Mail address and administrator do these silly problems go uncorrected?

Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and New TLD's (Discussion, 7/13/00 12:07:02 PM, #822) Question to DNSO, What would be possible determination for "Parties" that might wish to submit and be granted Registry status for TLD's they wish to manage?

Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and Participation/Working Groups (Discussion, 7/13/00 11:57:31 AM, #821) Question to DNSO and Roberto, Why is only the NC (Questionable ligitimacy in the first place) the only ones to create a Working group? Shouldn't this be voted upon by the stakeholders?

Dennis Schaefer (Individual) (Status Report, 7/13/00 11:56:47 AM, #820) I heartily endorse the notion of creating a Working Group to consider the question of an individuals constituency. As an indivdiual domain name owner, I can confirm that I have indeed contacted the NonCommercial Constituency to try to find some way to meet the membership criteria in order to obtain a voice in ICANN. I just don't belong there, and I find myself going through contortions trying to find some way to claim that I 'represent' a non-com organization. Please resolve this matter. I hope the Names Council will receive this this recommendation and respond thoughtfully and definitively. Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA

Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and Participation/Constituencies (Discussion, 7/13/00 11:54:18 AM, #819) Question to DNSO, If the ACM says or believes that there is an Importance of an Individuals Constituency, why has the DNSO or certain factions (Individuals, Harald A.) seemed to wish to block any such representation?

Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and original election process (Discussion, 7/13/00 11:43:04 AM, #818) Question to DNSO, When will there be and opertunity to have a new election on the DNSO with respect to Chair and co-chair which was notably illigitimate and fradulent?

Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and Participation (Discussion, 7/13/00 11:38:34 AM, #817) Question to DNSO, When will the DNSO discontinue the active practice of limiting participation in Working groups as they have done thus far?

Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and TLD's (Discussion, 7/13/00 11:35:12 AM, #816) Question to DNSO, How broad based does a individuals constituency need to be? Hasn't the IDNO sufficiently demonstrated their broad base support? What are the criterion if any for determining "broad base"?

Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and TLD's (Discussion, 7/13/00 11:33:01 AM, #814) Question to DNSO, When will individuals or small Domain Name owners either individually or in small like minded groups be allowed to participate on a level playing field with respect to DNS issues especially new TLD's?

Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and Selective Censorship (Discussion, 7/13/00 11:19:03 AM, #811) Question to DNSO, Why is it that the DNSO assembly members not had the opertunity until recently, to vote on Mailing list rules ligitimately?

Jeff Williams (INEGRoup) DNSO and Selective Censorship (Discussion, 7/13/00 11:17:52 AM, #810) Question to DNSO, When will the DNSO to discontinue Selective Censorship which has hampered participation?

Nestor Requeno (Memeber At Large) What Now? -- Continued, Part 2 (Feedback, 7/13/00 10:38:16 AM, #803) Continuation [[ Due to 1000 Character limit]]I think that motions/positions which mentions/alluded [to] the DNSO endorsement must be put to a GA vote, and only if passed by a majority, mention/maintain that is supported by the GA/DNSO by a majority/[breakndown of vote]. At the discretion of the DNSO Chair, short of, or in the absence of a majority vote, a given constituency may still submit the motion/potition/resolution but ALSO openly disclose that the DNSO either voted-it down -- or -- that the constituency did not consider the vote/decision of the GA/DNSO as a whole to move forward in approaching the Board on this items. That is, the use/mis-use of the DNSO name should be guarded and duly protected !!! Thank you for considering my comment. Very Truly Yours, Nestor Requeno, GA Registered Voter & Member At Large Los Angeles, California USA

Nestor Requeno (Memeber At Large) What now? (Status Report, 7/13/00 10:36:36 AM, #802) I'm concerned about the allusions made of some of the position papers/resolutions which claim/allude DNSO endorsement . . . Shouldn't there be a GA vote for any of the postion paper from the particular constituencies to be forwarded to the Board "in the name of the DNSO"? Nestor Requeno, GA Registered Voter & Member At Large Los Angeles, California USA

Dennis Schaefer (Individual) (Status Report, 7/13/00 10:05:21 AM, #801) Individual domain name owners are completely locked out of this entire debate over new gTLD's. How can DNSO claim to be concerned about protecting trademarks when in fact there is no one representing anyone but the trademark owners and their legal representatives speaking to DNSO? Dennis Schaefer Marblehead MA USA