DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [ga] Nomination Process

At 15:20 10/06/01 +1200, DPF wrote:

>Some issues which come to mind are:
>a) Should it be gTLD name holders only

I see no reason at all to discriminate between gSLD and ccSLD (or third 
level) Domain registrants.

>b) How about ccTLD name holders

Full members.  The ccTLD registries leaving the DNSO and trying to become a 
new SO does not lessen the DNSO interests of their registrants in any way.
I have given Joanna's objection a lot of thought, but I cannot see any 
logic in creating a differentiation. Their interests remain the same.

>c) What if you hold a third or fourth level name - should that be

Yes, if it is the first level where Individual registration is permitted.

>d) If ones goes with (c) then should any individual at all be eligible
>as it is easy to get a third level name for free

See above.

>(e) Should there be a minimum age of membership

For holding office, yes.

>(f) Do you need to hold/own the name or just be the admin contact for

Admin contact is not enough. There should be "colour of title" and the 
determinant is the power to withdraw the Domain or let it lapse.

>(g) Should there be restrictions on membership of an individual
>constituency and other constituencies?

Some feel yes, others no. ICANN bylaws demand openness and free 
cross-memberships. In practice this has turned into a big organizational 
It is reasonable to impose restrictions when it comes to running for public 
office in any constituency.

All these questions have been threshed (bottom -up) out a long time ago.

Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth

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 >>>