Re: RE: [council] gTLD CONSTITUENCY

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Technical:
1. Cc: ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org suppressed, not cross-posting rule.
2. Please do not sent endless lines (it is something related to the
   profile of your computer), I cannot read it well, and to quote you
   a special editing was necessary. You may see how it appears in:
   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00132.html


Milton,

I may understand that you are againts the dominating position of
VeriSign for .com/.org/.net. I might even sympatize with you on this.

But it does not preclude I disagree with majority of your comments.

BTW - receiving lesson from you about SRI and ccTLD registries
sounds a little strange ... 

> 
> Did you know that SRI, which proposed .GEO, ran the Internet 
> root and all gTLDs for ten years before Network Solutions? 
> On what basis do you exclude them from representation in a 
> registry constituency? 

They might have technical knowledge, but it is not sufficient.
They might have a lot of money, but it is not sufficient.

The issue is legitimacy.
They are not in the root.

By the way: how your reasonning deal with the would-be registries
willing to run a ccTLDs ?
Anybody applying to run .FR is just getting a seat at gTLD ?

> 
> Question: if a new company wanted to enter the automobile market, 
> should we give the decision to a council composed of General Motors, 
> Toyota, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler? 

Question: if a new European company wanted to print US dollar
banknotes, should we let them do ?

Elisabeth