Re: [ga] My analysis of proposed changes to NSI contract

[edierker@hi-tek.com]

The working group review was dismissed and categorically diluted.  but it is 
important to note by many calculations it was the most quoted production of the 
meeting in Melbourne.
Let us form a working group by self declaration and those interested pick a 
portion.  Whenever two or more of you shall compete, then so be it or cooperate.  
The working group stood on the words produced not the protocol.  We should be the 
same.  I emplore Crispin, Walsh, Crocker and Williams to take your declared subject 
and run, I ask Sotoris and Younger and Dassa and Lane to help compile. A different 
thread should be established for procedure and I beg enlistment for that 
purpose.  "they do not declare to us, but we to them" ed 2001
Sincerely,

---- Original Message ----

Just a few thoughts for discussion and thought on one particular aspect of the
proposed changes.

Under the new proposed contract there would not be any requirement to seperate
the Registrar and Registry functions.

I tend to reject any proprosal that eliminates this directive on the following
grounds:

Personally I feel that there is too much commercial activity associated with the
domain name system at the Registry level.  It is my belief that the Internet as
a global community would be best served by having all the Registries for the
TLD's administrated by community entities, be they government or socially
sponsored.  A large number of the ccTLD's are already administrated by community
entities under the approval of the local government.  I would like to see all
gTLD's administrated in a similar manner, not by commercial entities who may not
have the best interests of the Internet as a major concern but who are by
definition bound in their obligations to stock/share holders.

I would like to see all Registry and Registrar functions seperated with each TLD
Registery administrated by a non-profit organisation, not just the .org
Registry.  Commercial interests should only become involved at the Registrar
level and below.

To me, such a structure would ensure the global representation necessary for all
stakeholders at the Registry level.  Such Registries for each gTLD would take
some time to organise but as we have seen with the formation of ICANN, is not an
impossible task.  Each Registry would be committed to delivering a consistant
standard of service and open to all ICANN approved Registrars.

The Internet is a global resource and I perfer to see the major components of
the resource handled by non-profit globally orientated organisations that have
as their sole concern the continued operation and growth of the resource.

In essence, I disapprove the new proposed contracts for the reason they lock
ICANN into a specific form of resource management that we will find increasingly
hard to change.  I would like to see some effort put into introducing change now
under the existing agreement for when the opportunity arises for the changes to
be put into effect.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html