Re: [wg-review] TLD and IDNH constituencies.

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

I'm interested in that proposition, but the "How" has to be included,
otherwise that will be left to those who resist these changes and can dilute
the value of the move by choosing the ISOC or other body already in power to
represent the individuals and some other group already there to take on the
task of representing the STLDs.

So any proposal that states we recommend this must also come with a process
and a decision still needs to be made whether or not Constituency is the
answer to the proper structure in the first place.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jefsey Morfin" <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 6:02 AM
Subject: [wg-review] TLD and IDNH constituencies.


> Dear Miles,
> This question has been fully addressed at the GAC meeting in
> MDR.
>
> On 20:19 27/12/00, Miles B. Whitener said:
> >I have a long standing thought on TLDs.  I would think this has
> >been covered in detail in other places, and it may not relate to
> >the charter of this group.  So I apologize in advance to the
> >extent that this is redundant or off topic.
> >   Here it is: why are not TLDs simply open to registration?  Why
> >have several years been spent only to determine a small handful
> >of TLDs?  There's no technical reason not to open the TLDs.  I
> >understand that ownership of the root domain, and consequent
> >issues of "equity", are problems to be solved.  But the present
> >situation is, in my opinion, stupid.
>
> Board Member acknowledged that there could be millions of TLDs
> but that psychologically we had to open the tap progressively so
> the Governments feel secure with that and the net economy is
> not affected.
>
> This is the first realistic response I heard on the limited TLD number
> side. This means that the DNSO/specializedTLD constituency is to
> be introduced now (to take into account the expected delays).
> There are two scores of pending TLD applications and many more
> augmented.root TLD ready to join the ICANN as soon as the
> ICANN bylaws TLD related parts are applied.
>
> Why not to start it here? Everyone "interested" (as per Karl's
> formula) in joining and creating the DNSO/STLDO please second
> this motion I introduce to the Chair (we have only 15 days so we
> have to go directly where we want to go).
>
> "
> The WG-Review has noted that several groups of stakeholders
> had not the constituency the importance of their issues deserves.
>
> This mainly includes the individual domain name holders and the
> new specialized TLD applicants. To present concrete propositions
> towards a quick aggregation of these two constituencies, the WG-
> Reviews wants two specialized sub-Working Groups to be formed
> by people seconding this motion, one for IDNH and one for STLDs.
>
> Their mission will be to report this WG before Jan 8th the targets
> these two constituencies will pursue and further on to prepare - if
> they so decide - a letter to the BoD and to the Staff to initiate their
> Constituency building process. Their conclusions and their letter
> will be included in the WG-Review (interim) reports as soon as
> made available.
> "
>
>
> Jefsey
>