Re: (Fwd) Re: sovereignty meaning attached to domain names

["William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com>]

> From: Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>
> If Governments cannot represent themselves in the ccTLD constituency,
> then they should not need a special constituency for themselves.
>
> They either have some control over "~their" ccTLDs, or they do not,
> and it appears that they have freee coice to do so.
>
> So I see absolutely no need for giving them yet another handle to
> grasp.
>
It is my understanding that the reason for the various constituencies is
to balance competing interests around the table.  Your logic would be
the same as saying both registrars and registries have some control over
"their" TLDs, so there is no reason for them both to be at the table.

I support the idea that we bring related interests together, rather than
worrying about "grasp".  We need somewhere to debate and resolve any
conflicts.  Do you know of a better place?

BTW Stef, since you seem to be participating, what other specific
language needs to be incorporated from the ORSC to consolidate with
DNSO?  I'm hoping for constructive participation....

WSimpson@UMich.edu
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32