Re: [nc-org] The TF roster
>>> firstname.lastname@example.org 08/16/01 03:28PM >>>
>Since Philip has seen the present exchange about gTLD participation
>in the ORG-TF perhaps he could tell us, himself, how we should take
>his suggestion about inviting Roger to participate.
Philip has already told us how to handle it.
Here is his message:
"This does not to my mind mean that for typical task forces a
constituency will make more than ONE nomination. ...
The alternative is problematic. Allowing a constituency to make multiple nominations means that task forces may be unbalanced between constituencies and that a single constituency can determine the size and workability of a task force. ...
Based on this I would ask the gTLD constituency to re-consider its nominations for the dot org and UDRP task forces."
And then I replied:
"Thanks for clarifying this, Philip. My understanding
was that gTLDs' "official" nominee was Cary Karp.
Roger is welcome to consult with the group and we will
welcome his input because of his special position
with respect to the Verisign divestiture."
Then Philip replied
"Milton, for clarity; I suggest that Cary should be the gTLD nominee to the dot org TF and that as TF chair, you invite Roger as an observer, co-
opted for his expertise."
Note the words "as TF Chair, you invite Roger..."
It is very clear that:
1. Philip wanted only one TF member to a constituency,
2. It was my suggestion to allow Roger a special status and
3. Philip recognized my authority to do this.
As acting Chair, I will happily accept input and observation from
Roger when it is needed. OTOH, the whole purpose of this
exercise is to get ORG out of the control of Verisign, and
Roger's company has a direct economic stake in minimizing
competition with its remaining TLDs, therefore his participation
must be carefully circumscribed.
I will stand by that principle and I am quite sure I would have the backing
of the rules and the rest of the Names Council on that issue.
Please don't waste any more of the TF's time on this.