RE: [wg-review] ccTLD SO

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

Joop-

You may be confusing me with peter dengate thrush...

I have ALWAYS supported Individual Domain Name holders constituency.

peter (de Blanc)

-----Original Message-----
From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 4:28 AM
To: DPF; Sotiropoulos
Cc: Peter de Blanc; 'YJ Park'; 'Oscar Alejandro Robles Garay';
'Elisabeth Porteneuve'; 'Peter Dengate Thrush'; yann@netbox.com;
wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] ccTLD SO


At 20:00 17/03/01 +1300, DPF wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:38:56 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Peter,
>>
>>In other words, as an SO, the ccTLD SO would
>>appoint 3 Directors to the BoD
>
>Which is 3 out of what would be 21 Directors in exchange for funding
>one third of ICANN's costs.
>

I have heard this argument many times and in spite of the greatest sympathy
that I have for Peter Dengate-Thrush's stance, unless it results in
permanent actual support for the Individual registrants on the Board, I am
not happy with it from the registrants p.o.v.

When NSI was at odds with the interim Board, they also embraced the
Individuals' cause.
When the deal with ICANN was signed, it was over.

As soon as the ccTLD's make their peace with ICANN, will they still support
their registrants' interests?

The ccTLD's, like all the other TLD registries, collect their money (some
of which they pay towards the ICANN busget) from the registrants.

Why should the tax collectors get such a much bigger say than the taxpayers?

--joop

--
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