Re: [registrars] residence or citizenship??

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

i too support this position that residency is the key here.

for example...it is my understanding that there are people living in japan
who were born in japan and whose families have lived there for numerous
generations. they, due to a quirk in japanese law are not considered
japanese citizens and must carry passports from their "origin country" even
though they and their family may have not set foot in that country for 3,4,5
generations,

this is due to a sort of a "catch 22" clause in the japanese citizenship
requirements that states in effect that in order to be a japanese citizen
your parents must be japanese citizens.

this is a somewhat perverted example but still to-the -point.

ken stubbs





----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Gerrand <peter.gerrand@melbourneit.com.au>
To: Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>; <registrars@dnso.org>
Cc: <erica.roberts@melbourneit.com.au>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: [registrars] residence or citizenship??


> I support Amadeu's proposal for the waiver, for the reasons that both he
> and Bob Connolly have given.  For the Names Council, residency actually
> makes more sense for the registrar constituency.
> Peter Gerrand
> Melbourne IT
>