[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on draft 7
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:30:04 -0800
- From: Kent Crispin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Comments on draft 7
On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 02:12:17PM -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> 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.
No, that was not agreed to. I relatively sure about that, because I
suggested it :-) There was some side discussion I was involve in to
the effect that maybe NSI would get 1 rep and the ccTLDs would get 5
reps. The reason for not doing the split explicitly (which I agreed
with, once I was aware of it) is that the effect would be to
immediately give NSI three seats on the NC, since it is the only
gTLD registry at this time.
The switch to a 3/3 split between gTLDs and ccTLDs was discussed as
a later change.
> 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.
I agree with you on this point -- we are heading for trouble over
> 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.
I think you may be right about this. Suggest some wording.
> Appendix B. Section d.
> This is too narrowly defined, if it's a definition of the at-large
It is not a definition of the at-large. The at-large is specially
called out in the application as the constituency for members who
are not in any other constituency. Section d is for businesses and
Perhaps there should be a section f in appendix B that defines the
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain