You wrote:
> Hello kent, and all --
>
> The biggest thing that you are missing is that there is a long list of
> gTLD registry aspirants, and you are locking them all out of any
> represenation, because for some reason, they are off your radar
> screen. They are not off the ORSC radar!
>
> This is a big part of what I waws talking about in Monterey, when I
> pointed out that after all that work over 3 days, I had nothing to
> take home for my ORSC constituents.
>
You may have forgotten that in Monterrey the ccTLD people expressed openness
to the "perspective gTLDs". Nowhere they said that only ccTLDs + NSI had to
be represented.
The point being that a wording was very difficult, considering that
"perspective gTLDs" is a rather vague concept (everybody, even Amadeu
grandmother, can claim to be a "perspective gTLD"), so it has been decided
not to add language for it.
But the concept was clear.
(I remember clearly this, because I am a "perspective gTLD" myself!)
> So, you should give careful thought to allocating seats wequaly
> between ccTLD and gTLD "interests". Thsi does not equate to exiting
> registries.
>
Do you propose to include in the draft a point that was not a consensus
point?
> Also, you should note that the great preponderance of SLD registations
> are in gTLD registries, so it is very poor form to disenfranchise
> their registries by only counting registries.
>
> I think it will be very simple to arrange for NSI and the gTLD
> aspirants to share their allocation of 3 seats! I have never seen any
> sign or suggestion that NSI would insist on controlling ther gTLD
> delegation.
>
> And, rather than be afraid to ask, why not ask NSI what thye think of
> all this. Where are they in this discussion? Why are you guys not
> able to get them to particiapte? Has anyone talked to them about it?
>
NSI was invited, and has decided not to participate.
I personally respect their decision, even if I disagree.
In any case, should they participate, I am sure that they will be willing to
accept that the "competition" (i.e. the "perspective gTLDs") will not be
left without seats.
> So, in any case, you will never get ORSC to buy into this thing with a
> 1-5 split between gTLD-ccTLD registries.
>
Which 1-5 thing? Where is it written?
Neither will CORE ever buy this.
BTW, you are one of the adherents of the school of thought that DNSO.ORG is
a creature of CORE. Don't you see a contradiction between this statement and
the statement that "perspective gTLDs" (which includes CORE) are off our
radar screen ;>)?
Cheers
Roberto
P.S.: I took off participants@dnso.org because I unsubscribed that list, and
I am unable to post and receive. I was sick to get everything in double, and
to be involved in useless discussions about openness of the lists ;>)