Re: [ga] gTLD Constituency
> 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
> the change.
Excellent. I accept your point gladly. There is significant benefit in making
all applicants members of the gTLD constituency in that it prevents those with
a vested interest in delaying the process from having complete control, and
gives representation to those who have paid their fees and been told that
their applications are still pending. Anything less would be a clear lack
of direct representation for the pending gTLD registries. There is a clear
benefit to the criteria. I can't see a downside. I'd be pleased to entertain
suggestions of their existence.
> Your personal wonderings about people's motives are entirely inappropriate
> in a public discussion...
I disagree. My motives, for example, are based on the fact that I work for
an application-pending registry. Yours, for example, are based on the fact
that you are on the payroll of NeuStar, a company with an interest in
an application-accepted registry. It's not an ad-hominem attack to point
out that an argument is clearly biased based on vested interests. I'm only
too happy to admit to mine.
> So anyone who forks over 50K should be allowed to be a member of that
If you care to make that the gating function, you're welcome to do so. I
wouldn't put it that way, as the $50K was, in the context at hand, a side
effect of the application process. I believe it's more appropriate to simply
say that the constituency is comprised of those gTLD registries under
contract or with accepted applications pending.
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