[ga] Re: Re: [cctld-discuss] Re: Revised Draft ICANN ccNSO Bylaws ....

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@ameritech.net>]

From: <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>
> My much preffered option is for a clearly defined scope rfom the outset.
====

You might want to start with a list of TLDs that you consider to be countries, as opposed to tribal names.
Now that all of the legacy 2-letter TLDs have been picked over for their marketing value, you might find
that the list of so-called ccTLDs is very small. Couple that with the growth of the InterNAT (North American
Transport), and you might find the list gets smaller. At some point, small lists and narrow minds fade away.

http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-June/002420.html
Bob Braden braden at ISI.EDU 
Mon Jun 16 14:33:11 CEST 2003 
"Jon came to the conclusion that having a primary numbering space that
is mult-dimensional is bound to lead to confusion."
====

http://www.Chicago.IL
http://www.LosAngeles.CA
http://www.Delmar.DE

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>
To: <paulos@sdnp.org.mw>; "Stephan Welzel/Denic" <welzel@denic.de>
Cc: <africann@lists.gh>; <cctld-discuss@wwtld.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [cctld-discuss] Re: Revised Draft ICANN ccNSO Bylaws ....


> On 17 Jun 2003 at 13:52, Stephan Welzel/Denic wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Paulos,
> > 
> > On 17.06.2003 12:07 "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <paulos@sdnp.org.mw> wrote: >
> > > Without a defined scope, the development of a scope for the ccNSO
> > will be > outside the > scope of the new ccNSO. > > So how or under
> > what mandate will the scope of the ccNSO be developed?
> > 
> 
> Good point, Paulos.
> Stephan said
> > ;) I guess the worse problem is that this way the ccSO
> > might end up with a way broader scope than originally
> > envisaged...
> >
> I see a broader scope itself as advantageous -a broader scope simply 
> increases the power of the SO, as any policy made within the scope must 
> be carried out by the Board. If its not in the scope, then the Board can 
> ignore the SO.
> 
> But to return to this point, its a common enough "bootstrapping" or "start-
> up" problem. It could be avoided by a tight definition, but, in the absence 
> of that, it means that the Policy Recommendation from the SO on Scope 
> (after a PDP )  does not need to be adopted by the Board, which could 
> substitue its own definition of scope for the SO....
> 
> 
> My much preffered option is for a clearly defined scope rfom the outset.
> 
> Regards
> 
> .Peter Dengate Thrush
> Senior Vice Chair, 
> APTLD
> 
> Office  64 4 499 8959
> Mobile 64 21 499 888
> Fax     64 4 4710672
> 
> 
> 

--
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