sorry folks if you got this mail twice but as i have not got them over the
two lists -it may something hapened..either on the lists side or on mine
i send them again-sorry if you got it and me not and you got it now
twice..
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 04:40:27 +0100 (MET)
From: Sascha Ignjatovic <sascha@isoc.vienna.org>
To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Cc: discuss@dnso.org, PAB list <pab@gtld-mou.org>
Subject: Re: PAB comments on DNSO application
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Kent Crispin wrote:
> Please note that these are my personal comments, and are not
> necessarily representative of the opinions of anyone else.
>
> Kent
>
> PS Other committments have kept me from spending as much time on
> this as I would have liked, and I have not proofread my comments
> carefully. But hopefully the information will be useful.
mr.krispin thank you very much for the presentation of the dnso.org draft
and your comments it makes it more and easyer understandable..
you show again that you have really a good understanding on this matters
please allowe me a question-wich comes out of my ignorence
can you shortly explain the fact that..
> ================================================================
>
> FINAL
>
> APPLICATION TO BECOME THE DOMAIN NAME SUPPORT ORGANIZATION, pursuant to
> The DNSO membership shall consist of constituencies, as described
> below. Each constituency shall self-organize and determine its own
> criteria for membership.
each constituency should develope criteria for memebership in its
constituency
> [COMMENT: As noted, the constituencies set their own membership
> criteria. The internal organization of constituencies is
> studiously ignored. However, there are some requirements that
> are implied -- for example, constituencies must be able to
> nominate candidates for the Names Council in an open and fair
> manner. Another important requirement is that the constituencies
> be able to produce intelligent and meaningful comments on policy
> proposals.]
Q: how initial members into one constituency comes in first place
Q: how it will be asured that say some registries comes together into
initial constituency-how ever
and descide they want nobody else to become a member and make some
membership rules wich are hard to meet or unfair..what ever..
-this is only a example nothing against registries :-)
in the further section it says
B. MEMBERSHIP IN THE CONSTITUENCIES:
The constituencies described herein are an initial set of
constituencies. The DNSO and the Names Council will develop fair and
open procedures for the creation, deletion, and merger of
constituencies; and adjustment of the representation of
constituencies on the Names Council.
[COMMENT: there has been some discussion for mechanisms for doing
this, but the issues are fairly complex. Several points:
it says
The DNSO and the Names Council will develop fair and
open procedures for the creation, deletion, and merger of
constituencies;
but not how you it will handle the membership befor the "membership" set
rules for the membership for its constituency...
may be that this questions makes no sense or are rather already answered
or the time is not yet to asnwer them but i place them anyhow...
thanks
sascha
ps.you sayed in your comment that you would on weekend comment more on..
[COMMENT: The "non-commercial" constituency has been added, and
the "At-Large" constituency has been removed.
and will write more on the isue of individual membership wich could
requayer a new and separate constituency for it as it may be proposed
by the than name council or icann itself
we hope so ..
thanks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:38 PST