[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on draft 7
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 01:20:03 -0800
- From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
- Subject: Re: Comments on draft 7
Hello kent, and all --
The biggest thing that you are missing is that there is a long list of
gTLD registry aspirants, and you are locking them all out of any
represenation, because for some reason, they are off your radar
screen. They are not off the ORSC radar!
This is a big part of what I waws talking about in Monterey, when I
pointed out that after all that work over 3 days, I had nothing to
take home for my ORSC constituents.
So, you should give careful thought to allocating seats wequaly
between ccTLD and gTLD "interests". Thsi does not equate to exiting
Also, you should note that the great preponderance of SLD registations
are in gTLD registries, so it is very poor form to disenfranchise
their registries by only counting registries.
I think it will be very simple to arrange for NSI and the gTLD
aspirants to share their allocation of 3 seats! I have never seen any
sign or suggestion that NSI would insist on controlling ther gTLD
And, rather than be afraid to ask, why not ask NSI what thye think of
all this. Where are they in this discussion? Why are you guys not
able to get them to particiapte? Has anyone talked to them about it?
So, in any case, you will never get ORSC to buy into this thing with a
1-5 split between gTLD-ccTLD registries.
>From your message Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:30:04 -0800:
}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
}firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain