DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[nc-review] Re: DNSO review 3 - comments

This message may be redelivered later through my other account
which couldn't be delivered for more than 12 hours so far.

Hello Review Task Force,

This is one of requests from non-commercial constituency member
who wants me to deliver his concern through Review Task Force
regarding DNSO version 3.0 which has two concerns here.

1. More neutral description is needed between commercial and
    non-commercial weight.

2. Concerns in time whether the process we have gone through
    is time-conscious or not.

Supporting his concern in more balanced description in the report,
I want to seek understanding from him regarding comments after
its deadline since everybody has been pressed by time here.

As Review task force member, I do want to promise this will be
corrected by the request accordingly in the next version. BTW,
how can we make sure of this will be done among TF members?

I realized we have little discussion on the content of the report
i.e. whether we should put/delete this or not here. We have never
done any voting either among members. I am curious how we
are going to handle this in a small-size 8 member committee.

Theresa, can you advise me and members regarding this matter?

Thank you in advance,

From: "Adam Peake" <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>
To: <yjpark@minc.org>
Cc: <ncdnhc-discuss@lyris.isoc.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 10:15 PM
Subject: DNSO review 3 - comments

> Question about some text in the DNSO Review ver. 3 document
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-review/Arc00/msg00137.html>
> >Next steps in exploring whether to create an Individual Domain Name
> >Holders Constituency must include addressing different views within
> >individual domain name holder interest groups, to resolve contentious
> >areas, identify a representative charter that does not overlap with
> >the General Assembly, Non-Commercial Constituency, and the At Large.
> AIPLA's comments
> mentioned potential overlapping interests between all constituencies and
> particularly the NCC and IDNO. As I think our constituency discussion on
> whether to admit individuals showed, we were extremely aware that many
> individuals used their net presence for business and  deciding what was
> commercial/non-commercial was going to be a major concern.  The One-Person
> Business is not an unusual concept.  Our charter explicitly denies
> membership to individuals.
> YJ, as a Task Force member would you consider asking that this text be
> changed to either note that the overlap also includes the commercial
> constituency, or that reference to non-commercial be removed and replaced
> by text such as "the General Assembly, other constituencies, and the At
> Large." Perhaps include a reminder in that the DNSO formation concepts
> state "Individual domain name holders should be able to participate in
> constituencies for which they qualify."
> Also it would be interesting to know whether AIPLA's comment was submitted
> within the time limit. The message seems to be date stamped 30 minute
> before the deadline (document too), but the archive shows it delivered
> after? I would *not* suggest AIPLA's comments be excluded because of this,
> but given the fuss over time and deadlines it is worth clarifying.

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