[ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Patrick,

I looks to me like we are in fairly close agreement.  I also believe that
separating the suppliers from the users is a useful idea.  I understand, as
Roland points out in a separate post, that there is no perfect way to
separate producers from users.  But I believe that one of the complications
in the current DNSO model that makes it very difficult for the consensus
process to work is the fact that users and producers are in the same SO.  At
the same time, I fully recognize that in any structure, both the users and
the producers as well as other stakeholders must all work together to
determine if consensus exists.  Therefore, if users and producers are
separated into separate SO's, it would be essential to build a structure to
facilitate cross-SO collaboration.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 9:59 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: Re: DNSO Constituency Structure
> 
> 
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:04:49 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > I don't find any problem with your analysis.  In a purely 
> dichotomous
> > situation (which I recognize does not exist) I would put the
> > constituencies you classify as NEITHER on the demand side; in other
> > words, if there was simply a choice between supply and demand, I
> > personally think they are more on the demand side.
> 
> I'm sure you will agree with me that many ISPs are sellers of 
> domain names.
> Perhaps William X. Walsh would advise the situation with the OpenSRS
> resellers?  Are they mostly ISPs or do they perform other services?
> 
> Of course, ISPs may be seen as buying domain names which they 
> then onsell to
> their customers.  However, my concept is that a reseller of 
> domain names (a
> la OpenSRS) is really a baby registrar waiting to grow up.  
> In some cases
> they might even apply to auDA for full accreditation as a registrar.
> 
> Except, perhaps, when they want a lower price for domain names !!
> 
> I believe OpenSRS calls them Registration Service Providers (RSPs).
> Cetainly they are very supportive of their relationship with 
> the parent
> Registrar.  In fact, I cannot imagine them in any sort of opposition.
> 
> However, there is a distinction.  ISPs are more properly considered as
> "infrastructure".  In other words their "core business" is not selling
> domain names.  So their presence in the DNSO is really an 
> anomaly.  Perhaps
> all the infrastructure people should be considered quite separately.
> 
> Which is why I classified them as "NEITHER".
> 
> > In the case of the ccTLDs, I recognize that in many
> > cases they have some special obligations on the demand side 
> but it is also
> > true with regard to some ccTLDs that they are almost 
> totally on the supply
> > side and are even for profit organizations.
> 
> I've written separately about ccTLDs.
> 
> > My primary point of course was to note that the NC is not 
> dominated by
> > those on the supply side and in fact may be 
> underrepresented when one
> > considers the amount of impact on registries and registrars 
> (including
> ccTLDs).
> 
> I understand.  Perhaps you are right.  My argument was more 
> that a clearer
> division between supply and demand would provide better focus for the
> Names Council.  It also clarifies the position of newnet.
> 
> The NC could more easily try to balance the opposing 
> viewpoints.  If they
> agreed with each other, you could claim some form of consensus.
> 
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
> 
> 
> 
--
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