RE: RE: [council] Alternate Root paper by Grant
You got my attention all right! :-). I guess my perspective in this (and
that of my constituency) is that the ICANN root (for want of a better
expression) is the one we care about. My constituency is made up of ICANN
accredited registrars and we are concerned to ensure the stability,
integrity, etc, of the ICANN root. You have suggested that we need to be
concerned about other roots. At this stage I am not sure why this should be
a matter of concern for either the Registrars constituency or the NC.
However, since you (and others)aparently think the issue is an important one
for the NC, I am interested in developing a better understanding of the
I gather an acceptable title for the agenda item has been reached.
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 6:13 AM
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Re: RE: [council] Alternate Root paper by Grant
Just want to make it clear that my objections
were never based on "semantics" but on procedure
Regarding the name of the committee, Erica, if the
agenda called committee the "Committee to Strip
Melbourne IT of rights to .BIZ," I think you would
object to the title, no? And if in reply someone
scolded you not to get hung up on "semantics" you
would think it a bit disingenuous, right?
Sorry for the extreme example. :-) It was intended to
get your attention.
The original title, "Authoritative and experimental
roots," is simply NOT what the committee was set up to consider.
Names are important. (Do I really have to say this in
a domain name policy making body?) If Elizabeth and
Philip gave the committee a name that Peter and I
object to, it indicates that there is a lack of
common understanding as to the agenda and mission
of the committee. That misunderstanding needs to be
faced and corrected, not brushed aside.