[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Comments on draft 7
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:12:17 -0500
- From: Michael Sondow <email@example.com>
- Subject: Comments on draft 7
I submitted comments on draft 7 to these lists, but there hasn't been
any real discussion of them. Therefore I am re-submitting them with some
Some preliminary comments on Draft 7 of the DNSO Application
Section I. Subsection C.
Shouldn't it be stipulated that three NC members are from ccTLD
registries and three from gTLD registries? I believe we agreed to that
proviso in Monterrey and that the registries group also agreed. Please
tell me if this is wrong. I think we are heading for trouble and more
time-wasting if we seem to be suggesting that the ccTLDs are going to
control more NC members than anyone else.
Section I. Subsection D.
I really don't recall that we agreed to let the NC decide who can and
can't be a DNSO member. In any case, why should the Names Council, or
anyone else, decide this? All there needs to be are criteria for
membership, and a secretary or specific membership person who checks to
see if applicants comply. Putting it up to the Names Council is like
saying they can choose who the members will be. This looks very bad.
Also - it's work for them, to no good purpose.
Appendix B. Section d.
This is too narrowly defined, if it's a definition of the at-large
constitutency. There must be a place for individuals, and for
organizations that are not incorporated. Would we exclude, for example,
the IFWP, a Usenet group, an IETF Working Group (USWG), or TERENA's
WG-ISUS? These are all groups of individuals with a legitimate interest
in DN policy, yet they are not incorporated. The Internet abounds in
unincorporated, non-geographically defined associations of individuals
with a very real interest in Internet DNS policy, and there must be a
place for them in the DNSO at-large constitutency.