DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [registrars] PersonalNames.com

> I disagree.  I think the NSI/VGRS issue is similar but different, as I
> noted above.
> I am all for restrictions on their membership and/or participation in the
> RC as Ross suggested.  I think we need to do more.  Honestly, I don't
> expect the RC as a whole will really act in the manner I suggested, but it
> is our opinion that the RC should do this and so I proposed it.

I tend to agree with you on this Jim. It has always been my view that
Verisign is the exception that we have been trying to manage and not a
precedent that we are trying to optimize for.  I'm not sure how much of this
the constituency can deal with for a variety of reasons, both political and
practical, but we can start with the motion that we have in front of us - it
is a small, but important first step.

I will be restating the motion when I get into the office this morning,
including the amendments that have come forth. The ExecComm has not
clarified the voting process to my satisfaction so I will be simply
forwarding the final motion to the ExecComm for their discussion per Rick's
earlier suggestion in the hopes that we can start a vote sometime early next

In the meantime, if anyone has any further suggestions to tighten up the
language of the motion or ideas as to how can approach these concerns from a
different angle, please bring them forward. As Jim rightly notes, this is a
serious issue that we must deal with aggressively.


Got Blog? http://www.byte.org

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

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