RE: [ga] Re: DNSO Constituency Structure

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

|> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
|> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 1:58 AM
|> 
|> At 00:58 23/11/01 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> >The thing that you guys have both missed is that a 
|> >DNS zone file publisher is also a registrant. MHSC 
|> >publishes zone files all the way out to the fourth 
|> >level. Many COM registrants also publish SLD and 
|> >3LD zone files. They're called delegated sub-domains. 
|> >Guess what, each one that does that is a registry 
|> >for that zone file.
|> 
|> This is true. And this is an area where supply and 
|> demand "constituencies" naturally overlap.
|> It is the closed constituency structure that has 
|> been forced upon the DNSO since ICANN Singapore that 
|> is responsible for the polarization and the turf wars.

Well, constituencies, as they were introduced in the IFWP, were a lot more
flexible. But, like the ICANN BoD, I didn't have any clue how we were going
to implement such a variable structure. The current scheme is a half-measure
that I think we were better off without. But, I've already made the "delete
the constituencies" speech.

|> How many small DN owners are also TM owners? Why can't they 
|> become part of the IP "constituency"?
|> Now the business constituency redefines itself to e-businesses.

All reports state otherwise. Maybe I should read those reports again. One of
us is operating under a misunderstanding.

|> The DNSO becomes more lopsided for big biz by the day.
|> 
|> >I think that we're about to confuse operational and 
|> >business models here. There are private and public 
|> >registries and many are both. Some do it for revenue 
|> >and others do it for internal cross charges. Yet 
|> >others, are charitable organizations (which may soon 
|> >be broke).
|> >
|> >IMHO, the supply/demand polarized view may not be 
|> >as accurate a model as y'all would like it to be.
|> 
|> Agree. But Patrick is right in starting to look for 
|> different parts of an equation that can be used to 
|> introduce balances. Do you know a better formula than 
|> DN supply/demand?

Hmm, how about publisher/distributor/buyer? 

Networks aren't so easy to analogize.
--
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