Re: PAB [Fwd: DNSO Important update: The "Merged" Draft]

From: William Allen Simpson (wsimpson@greendragon.com)
Date: Wed Jan 20 1999 - 08:05:45 PST


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