RE: [wg-review] ccTLD SO

[Peter de Blanc <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

see point by point below...

peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 1:01 AM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: 'YJ Park'; 'Oscar Alejandro Robles Garay'; 'Elisabeth Porteneuve';
'Peter Dengate Thrush'; yann@netbox.com; wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] ccTLD SO


Peter et al.,

What are some of your ideas regarding
interaction/participation of a distinct ccTLD SO
with(in) the DNSO?


 Specifically, would the ccTLD
SO participate in DNSO voting processes? YES!


 Would a
distinct ccTLD SO (which still `participated' in
the DNSO) contribute financially -if required- to
the maintenance of a newly organized DNSO? ........ YES! full share (about
US$ 15-17 K now)

 Would
a distinct ccTLD SO make any special demands or
enforce any extrinsic requirements upon the
restructured DNSO?... NO!

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network, Inc.

Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> YJ, et al,
>
> IMHO (speaking personally, not as chair of ccTLD AdCom), the establishment
> of ccTLD as an SO would not/should not preclude participation in the DNSO.
> If the ccTLD establishes itself as an SO, an appropritate change in
by-laws
> could/would occur.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: YJ Park [mailto:yjpark@myepark.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 11:13 PM
> To: Peter de Blanc; Oscar Alejandro Robles Garay; Elisabeth Porteneuve;
> Peter Dengate Thrush; yann@netbox.com
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Fw: [wg-review] ccTLD SO
>
> Hello ccTLD representatives,
>
> This topic has been discussed on and off during Melbourne
> ccTLD constituency meeting, WG-Review's efforts to evaluate
> ccSO together with ccTLD representative will be meaningful.
>
> Thank you,
> YJ
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>
> To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 9:23 AM
> Subject: [wg-review] ccTLD SO
>
> > As a starting point for structural discussions, I see the very real
> > possibility that the ccTLD Constituency may decide to form their own
> > Supporting Organization.  The creation of such an SO would thereby
> preclude
> > the existence of a ccTLD Constituency within the Names Council of the
> DNSO:
> >
> > Section 4. ELIGIBILITY
> > No person shall serve simultaneously as (i) a member of any Supporting
> > Organization Council or other body that is directly responsible for the
> > selection of Directors by that Supporting Organization and (ii) a
Director
> > or a member of any other Supporting Organization Council.
> > http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-16jul00.htm#VI
> >
> > Perhaps a representative of the ccTLDs could comment on this
possibility.
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html