RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Actually, they are more accurately called "inclusive roots".

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:pdeblanc@usvi.net]
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 5:04 AM
> To: wg-review@dnso.org
> Cc: 'Chris McElroy'
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
> 
> 
> Re:
> 
> alternate roots
> 
> The ccTLD has no position on the subject of alternate roots. 
> The matter has
> never come up in ccTLD working groups or drafting committees.
> 
> Peter de Blanc
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Chris McElroy
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 4:46 AM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
> 
> 
> To reiterate a question posed by Bruce James in a way, What 
> is the ccTLDs
> position on roots such as the ORSC?
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
> To: "'DPF'" <david@farrar.com>; <wg-review@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 10:29 PM
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
> 
> 
> > re:
> >
> > "There is a strong case IMO that the ccTLDS should have far 
> more voting
> > strength than 1/7th of the DNSO which is in turn 1/6th of 
> the Board so
> > is 1/42nd" etc and 1/3 of the budget...
> >
> > Yes, we (ccTLD) are studying possible alternatives in our 
> relationship
> with
> > ICANN. Also, we feel tha ccTLD participation potentially lends geat
> > credibility to ICANN in terms of validating "International 
> Status", and
> > should help the ICANN goal of getting control of the root 
> deligated from
> US
> > Dept of Commerce.
> >
> > These are real issues, especially considering the fact that a new
> > (Republican) administration is coming into power in the U.S.
> >
> > peter de Blanc
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> > Behalf Of DPF
> > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 11:17 PM
> > To: wg-review@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:43:10 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> > >It is obvious that there are in fact groups (such as the 
> ccTLDs and the
> > >registrars) that are in a unique relationships with ICANN, 
> relationships
> > >that are not fairly or adequately addressed by a "one 
> person, one vote"
> > >rule.  The exact nature of these unique relationships is 
> debatable, but
> > >that they exist is not.  These groups demand, and in fact 
> deserve, a
> > >special place at the table.
> >
> > I agree that there is a need for constituencies for both 
> political and
> > administrative reasons but apart from debating which groups should
> > have a constituency we should also (IMO) debate are all 
> constituencies
> > equal??
> >
> > Why should all constituencies get three seats on Names 
> Council??  This
> > is very arbitrary and one can argue that some constituencies are far
> > more important than others.
> >
> > There is a strong case IMO that the ccTLDS should have far 
> more voting
> > strength than 1/7th of the DNSO which is in turn 1/6th of 
> the Board so
> > is 1/42nd all up - especially as they are asked to fund 35% of the
> > budget.
> >
> > Now one way around this is having the ccTLDS become a SO, 
> but one can
> > also look at whether representation on the Names Council should be 3
> > votes per constituency.
> >
> > DPF
> > 
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
> > <david at farrar dot com>
> > NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
> > ICQ 29964527
> >
>