Re: Comments on draft 7

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 02:12:17PM -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> I submitted comments on draft 7 to these lists, but there hasn't been
> any real discussion of them. Therefore I am re-submitting them with some
> updating.
> .....................................................................
> 
> Some preliminary comments on Draft 7 of the DNSO Application
> 
> Section I. Subsection C. 
> 
> Shouldn't it be stipulated that three NC members are from ccTLD
> registries and three from gTLD registries? I believe we agreed to that
> proviso in Monterrey and that the registries group also agreed.

No, that was not agreed to.  I relatively sure about that, because I 
suggested it :-)  There was some side discussion I was involve in to 
the effect that maybe NSI would get 1 rep and the ccTLDs would get 5 
reps.  The reason for not doing the split explicitly (which I agreed 
with, once I was aware of it) is that the effect would be to 
immediately give NSI three seats on the NC, since it is the only 
gTLD registry at this time.

The switch to a 3/3 split between gTLDs and ccTLDs was discussed as 
a later change.

> Please
> tell me if this is wrong. I think we are heading for trouble and more
> time-wasting if we seem to be suggesting that the ccTLDs are going to
> control more NC members than anyone else.

I agree with you on this point -- we are heading for trouble over 
this point.

> Section I. Subsection D. 
> 
> I really don't recall that we agreed to let the NC decide who can and
> can't be a DNSO member. In any case, why should the Names Council, or
> anyone else, decide this? All there needs to be are criteria for
> membership, and a secretary or specific membership person who checks to
> see if applicants comply. Putting it up to the Names Council is like
> saying they can choose who the members will be. This looks very bad.
> Also - it's work for them, to no good purpose.

I think you may be right about this. Suggest some wording.

> Appendix B. Section d.
> 
> This is too narrowly defined, if it's a definition of the at-large
> constitutency.

It is not a definition of the at-large.  The at-large is specially 
called out in the application as the constituency for members who 
are not in any other constituency.  Section d is for businesses and 
organizations. 

Perhaps there should be a section f in appendix B that defines the 
at-large?

kent

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair				"Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com				lonesome." -- Mark Twain