Re[2]: [ga] gTLD Constituency

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Christopher,

Monday, April 09, 2001, 7:59:20 PM, Christopher Ambler wrote:

>> The rule for rule-making is that you do NOT make changes just for the heck 
>> of it.  The criterion cannot be "we do not see any danger in making the 
>> change".  The criterion must be: "we see significant benefit in making the 
>> change."  Hence the burden for making their case lies with those seeking 
>> the change.

> Excellent. I accept your point gladly. There is significant benefit in making
> all applicants members of the gTLD constituency in that it prevents those with
> a vested interest in delaying the process from having complete control, and
> gives representation to those who have paid their fees and been told that
> their applications are still pending. Anything less would be a clear lack
> of direct representation for the pending gTLD registries. There is a clear
> benefit to the criteria. I can't see a downside. I'd be pleased to entertain
> suggestions of their existence.

I'll toss in something to counter the argument that this would place
the producer/consumer balance out of whack.  Add an individual domain
holders constituency at the same time.

This would defeat the "out of balance" argument used against both of
those prospective constituencies.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
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