Re: [nc-org] Revised draft - reflecting teleconference

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

milton ...

please show me where i indicated opposition to a "policy council" . if i
left that impression anywhere i did not mean to.  my principal concern and
opposition are the references to "election of officers and management of the
registry operator" by registrants.

ken stubbs

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
To: <kstubbs@digitel.net>; <nc-org@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [nc-org] Revised draft - reflecting teleconference


>>> "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net> 01/03/02 19:08 PM >>>
> this clause attempts  create a scenario whereby an
> entity who applies for management of this tld MUST
> agree to submit itself to selection of the entity's
> management by the registrants.

No, I think you are not reading the language
carefully enough. Here it is:

"Applicants should propose governance structures for the .org TLD that
provide all .org registrants with the opportunity to directly participate in
the selection of officers and/or policy-making council members."

So it is "and/or" - one can propose that they
select policy making council members OR officers,
or both. I can only speculate why you would oppose
giving the basic stakeholders in the domain -
the registrants - the right to at LEAST select
a policy council. It doesn't make any sense to me.

By the way, I do not agree with Grant that this
is an unnecessary detail that we can dispense with.
It is a critical part of the demand for open and
transparent administration of the neworg. That is
a key consideration for the GA representative, to
NCDNHC, and possibly other constituencies.