RE: [ga-roots] TLD's

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 20 May 2001, at 11:48, Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: owner-ga-roots@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-roots@dnso.org]On Behalf
> |> Of L Gallegos |> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 11:25 AM |> To:
> ga-roots@dnso.org |> Subject: Re: [ga-roots] TLD's |>
> 
> Leah
> 
> |> Dassa, I don't understand your objection.  A TLD was offered to the |>
> TLDA and was not accepted partly because the TLDA does not operate |> any
> TLDs or a root.  It is a trade association, and as such, the board |> felt
> that the TLDA would or could be seen as being in competition with |> its
> members if it held the TLD.  It has nothing to do with |> treating a TLD
> casually.  As a matter of fact, it was considered to be a |> serious enough
> issue that it took considerable discussion.
> 
> I have not objections to what the TLDA undertakes as its business.  I am
> not in any position to object as I am not a member of it.  However, I
> raised the point that TLD's are being tossed around in a very casual manner
> as evidenced by the TLDA meeting minutes and that a very small number of
> people have the power to discuss and determine the fate of a TLD.

I think it is more to the point that this small number of people declined 
to determine the fate of a TLD precisely because it was inappropriate at 
the time.  Once there is a membership, committees can be formed to 
delve into this type of issue in terms of possible standards.  However, a 
TLD holder controls a TLD and can assign his rights to it.  It would 
certainly not be up to a trade association to dictate that function to a 
TLD holder.  The decision was to decline stewardship of .TLD at that 
time for what I feel are quite valid reasons.

> 
> |> In addition, the initial board was tasked with specific
> |> functions and we limited ourselves to those tasks.  The permanent,
> elected board will
> |> have the responsibility to address issues such as this one and it would
> |> have been premature and innapropriate for the initial board to |> accept
> it.
> 
> It would seem not all Board members are sure of the functions and
> restrictions they are intended to operate under given the motions put
> forward at the meeting from which I quoted subsets of the minutes.

As an initial board, we had not yet formed specific bylaws and rules 
governing that type of action.  That is the reason for a lengthly and 
thoughtful discussion of the issue and the position of the association at 
that point in time.  I am sure there will be other situations where the 
association will have to deal with decisions not covered in the bylaws.  
There will be discussion among members at those times as well.  It 
would be wonderful if every contingency could be planned for in 
advance.  Again, Dass, you are taking the minutes of a very new 
organization and dissecting them as if there were establshed rules 
governing them at the time.  We were and are in the process of forming 
those rules, which is the job of an initial board.  Until there is a 
membership, the board is limited to initial formation of criteria.

> 
> |> Just to clarify things a bit for you, the TLDA does not and
> |> will not treat the operation of any TLD cavalierly.  It is, in fact, a
> very serious |> undertaking.  TLDA is a new organization and has a great
> deal of growth |> and planning ahead.  I would expect the naysayers to pan
> it, but your |> comments were really premature, IMO.
> 
> I'm glad to see the above, the minutes I quoted showed a somewhat cavalier
> treatment of a TLD.  BTW, my comments were not intended to single out the
> TLDA for censure but to illustrate some concerns I have with roots other
> than the legacy root.

We have nothing to do with any root, so associating the actions of a 
trade association with decisions made by roots is inappropriate.  
Personally, I have no input or knowledge of the methods used in making 
decisions in the roots and do not wish to make those decisions.  
Perhaps the TLDA will be respected enough that the roots will consider 
its opinions and actions when deciding what to include.

> 
> As such, I used the minutes from the TLDA meeting to show how a small
> number of individuals determine the fate of TLDs in other roots.  There has
> not been a great deal of information regarding the procedures and policies
> in play with the other roots on the list and this insight into how a TLD
> operation was being discussed and handled by an Association formed to
> represent the interests of TLD operators was very informative.

Once again, this has nothing whatever to do with how decisions are 
made wrt to TLDs by the roots.  Nothing.  They are two totally different 
concepts and functions. 

> 
> It is my understanding from personal observation and the membeship rules
> for the TLDA that those on the Board have a great deal of experience in TLD
> and other root operations.  How those Board members dealt with such an
> issue as the transfer of a TLD was extremely interesting.  That I found the
> process disturbing and further eroding of any confidence I may have in
> other root operations is a personal opinion.

The only possible observation is that this association declined 
stewardship of a TLD.  It was certainly not determinative of the fate of 
the TLD or its transfer.  It was not transferred - at least not by or to the 
association.  That was precisely the point, I beleive.

Leah

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


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