DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re[2]: [ga] gTLD Constituency

Hello Christopher,

Monday, April 09, 2001, 7:59:20 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>> 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.

I'll toss in something to counter the argument that this would place
the producer/consumer balance out of whack.  Add an individual domain
holders constituency at the same time.

This would defeat the "out of balance" argument used against both of
those prospective constituencies.

Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com

This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>