[wg-c] Re: Status of our TLD request?

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

Eric --

	This is a response in my personal capacity, not in my capacity as co-chair
of WG-C.  As you will have seen from reading the archives, the working
group hasn't reached any agreement regarding the mechanism through which
new TLD registries and strings should be chosen; accordingly, we haven't
had much basis for discussing the desirability of particular TLDs.

	Position statements for the interim report must be submitted *by members
of the working group*.  OTOH, it isn't difficult to become a member of the
working group; just send a note to Javier or me asking that you be added.
(It might be reasonable to close membership of the group at some point.  In
fact, though, we've been adding members steadily all along -- one as
recently as this past Wednesday -- and we'll probably get a set of new
requests for membership, from folks on various sides of the issues, after
the interim report is made public.)  If you choose to become a member of
the WG, you will have the right to submit a position paper, as set out in
Friday's message.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com


At 08:49 PM 9/20/99 -0400, Eric Brunner wrote:
>Hello again WG-C co-chairs and members,
>
>I've been asked to prepare a position paper for the October NCAI, and must
>answer the question of what is the status of our standing request for the
>creation of at least one TLD.
>
>Should WG-C wish to entertain an updated proposal, consistent with the
>sollicitation for position statements contained in the co-chair mail of
>the 17th, for an indigenous, or more narrowly, a North American Aboriginal
>TLD, I'll be happy to provide WG-C with the same text that the NCAI, and
>later the AFN, have requested to take under consideration.
>
>As an observer I am pleased that the proposal to create some few TLDs has
>progressed. We would be very pleased to be one of the 6-10. The Indian
>technical DNS community is small, but we can operate a registry, and it
>would be more in keeping with our values not to have to start with the
>errors and limitations of the existing SLD created to "help indians".
>
>As an informational item, we have learned that the Te Puni Kokiri (Maori
>Ministry of Development) assumed O&M responsibility for iwi.nz effective
>Sept. 15th. We provided technical support to the TPK during the negociating
>period, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
>
>Eric Brunner
>
>references
>[1]
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-gtlds/Archives/msg00000.html