Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

If the applications were to be vetted through the NC, fully half of the
members would have to remove themselves due to conflict of interest,
and the other half would be suspect.

Hence, my suggestion that the criteria be OBJECTIVE and not subjective.

--
Christopher Ambler
chris@the.web


----- Original Message -----
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
To: "Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>
Cc: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> On 23-Mar-2000 Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> > I think it's an impossible task to expect to build "consensus" on what
the
> > first 6-10 new gTLDs should be, but I would expect that we could find
> > consensus on what factors should be considered and what minimum
standards
> > should be imposed for gTLD names and registry operations. The NC would
use
> > those consensus factors to select among the proposals, and then forward
a
> > recommendation to the Board.
>
> You really think it is appropriate for the applications to be vetted
through
> the NC?  I don't interpret the bylaws as requiring that, myself.  The NC
should
> pass on the policy recommendation, then ICANN is responsible
implementation of
> the policy.
>
> With the current captured state of the NC, I'd be more than a little
concerned
> about giving them more of a roll than necessary and required under the
bylaws.
>
> - --
> William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> http://userfriendly.com/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
> Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/
>
> iD8DBQE42mZP8zLmV94Pz+IRAoVrAJ9xUKKzHDnE0Zwrt0otwMB7T+3T3gCg3/Mx
> MCRBJKKhknMdPo2YS/4GIiw=
> =9cMf
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----