Bill,
I've extracted and reversed the order of two of your comments, I
hope without distorting your intent.
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:05:45 +0000 (GMT) William Allen Simpson
<wsimpson@greendragon.com> wrote:
> 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?
Well, if the ccTLDs are forced into the system --which several
actors are attempting (for a variety of reasons)-- there are
_already_ hundreds of registries.
> * 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.
There is a little conflict of theories here, so the answer may
not be as clear as you (or, for that matter the document's
authors) assume. Consider...
(i) Under the IAHC/POC/CORE model, the registry(ies) were simply
contractors, doing works for hire for the registrars. Under that
model, there is no excuse at all for a registry to be on the NC
or board except, possibly, as a non-voting technical consultant.
(ii) Under the model that seems to be evolving, the registry is
either a contractor of ICANN or a completely independent entity
and it, and not ICANN or the DNSO, charters and authorizes
registrars. In that model, the registry probably needs voting
representation, and so do the registrars. In spite of the
contractual representation, their interests are quite different.
(iii) Under the third model --which is where I thought we were
headed in September and October-- the registries would operate
under ICANN charter and/or contracts and the registrars would
operate under ICANN (or maybe DNSO) charter and/or contracts.
Neither would be a superior organization type to the other,
neither would have a contractual relationship with the other,
and both would logically be represented in some effective way in
the DNSO structure.
I personally find a lot to dislike in the second model, but that
is probably a different issue.
john
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:38 PST