Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency
At 06:31 PM 4/9/2001, Christopher Ambler wrote:
>If it's as inconsequential as Kent implies, then I fail to see the objection.
So we should automatically accept every suggestion that has minor impact,
no matter how silly the suggestion?
The rule for rule-making is that you do NOT make changes just for the heck
of it. The criterion cannot be "we do not see any danger in making the
change". The criterion must be: "we see significant benefit in making the
change." Hence the burden for making their case lies with those seeking
>can't help but wonder why Kent is arguing so forcefully against something
>as irrelevant as he claims it to be.
Your personal wonderings about people's motives are entirely inappropriate
in a public discussion, and this list has enforcement against it. For
example, the fact that *I* wonder why you feel the need to question Kent's
motives, is also inappropriate for discussion on this list.
>As one who paid the $50,000, I'd be very pleased to have some
>representation on the names council.
Of course you would.
But then, you would also like to see your independent .web forced onto ICANN.
>As a result of ICANN's insistence that all who submitted TLD applications
>have not been turned down, but are, instead, "pending," I see no reason
>why the gTLD constituency membership should not include all "pending"
>registries as well.
So anyone who forks over 50K should be allowed to be a member of that
Dave Crocker <mailto:email@example.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html