Re: [wg-review] DNSO recommendations

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> The DNSO model I support is rather simple and not
> so different from the existing one - once the voting
> aspects have been changed.
> 
> 1. The DNSO is to be a Consultant to the BoD on DN issues.

My understanding is that the current bylaws make the DNSO the
body with primary responsibility for making policy in this area.
          ****************************************

I object strongly to the notion of formally reducing it to a
consulting role. Of course I know that it has already effectively
been reduced to that. I object to that as well.

> Only DN holders should be allowed as members.

Absurd.
 
Many people other than domain holders have an interest in seeing
the system work well.
 
Granted, if there's a constituency structure then domain name
holders must have a constituency. Methinks the public interest
groups -- EFF et al -- should have one too, and those two
constituencies together should have a majority of NC votes.
--
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