After reading the draft, a couple of major objections come to mind:
* 21 board members is too many! You'll never get anything done, and
reaching consensus will be problematic.
My experience is that 10 is the upper limit. Drop the consituencies
representation to 2 each.
* I see a serious conflict of interest problem for the "registry"
constituency. After all, the registry has a contractual obligation
to the registrars, yet serves on the same board. Worse, there appear
to be twice as many registry board members.
It would be better to make registry oversight an executive function
of the DNSO itself, administered by the Names council, and granting
ex officio board representation by each contracted registry. We
don't expect to have hundreds of registries, do we?
WSimpson@UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:38 PST