[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on draft 7
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 17:03:46 -0500
- From: Michael Sondow <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Comments on draft 7
Kent Crispin a écrit:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 02:12:17PM -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> > 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.
I see. Well, maybe that could be written in. Or it could be phrased so
that the 3/3 split is the rule, with a temporary exception being made
during the transition period. After all, once the ccTLDs have five reps,
they're not going to accept losing two of them.
> >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
> this point.
Maybe we can phrase the application so as to avoid it, or at least
reduce its effects.
> > 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.
I'll work on it as soon as I can get away from these d**n lists :)
> > Appendix B. Section d.
> > This is too narrowly defined, if it's a definition of the at-large
> > constitutency.
> 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
Absolutely! The way it's worded now, it looks like there is no at-large
There was a bit of confusion about the terminology at Monterrey
("at-large"? "general"? "businesses and organizations"? "individuals"?).
In any case, the understood intent was to have a constitutency for all
who didn't fit into the others. If it's called "at-large", as per the
ICANN terminology, can that be written into the application? Otherwise,
there will be no constitutency within which I can join this erstwhile