[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] Discussion of Constituency Formation
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [IFWP] Discussion of Constituency Formation
- From: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:21:21 +0100
- CC: ICANN Comments <Comments@icann.org>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, ICANN SO comments <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Organization: INEG. Inc.
- References: <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Ellen and all,
Ellen Rony wrote:
> Richard Sexton wrote:
> >> In particular, these documents specify that the DNSO will include the
> >>following initial Constituency Groups:
> >> ccTLD registries
> >> Commercial and business entities
> >> gTLD registries
> >gTLD registrieS ? There's only one... or does this mean "prospective
> >registreis" ?
> I'm not a fan of the constituency-based model, and herein is another
> example where this structure has not been well thought out.
I couldn't agree with you more. Neither did the majority of the
Stakeholders, however due to the unilateral, blinder wearing,
ICANN INterim Board in full cronyism mode, decided to adopt
this misguided model as part of the structure of the DNSO. My
guess is that the same will be done with the PSO and ASO as well.
I suppose that the reasoning, though never stated or even eluded to
for this sort of gerrymandering model it to justify a need for more
bureaucracy and political appointment(s)...
> What differentiates ccTLD registries from gTLD registries, except that
> authority for the former resides with sovereign nation-states. Clearly
> there are some ccTLDs that operate as charter or boutique TLDs, lacking any
> residence requirements and using their fortuitous 2-character codes for
> market advantage (e.g., .tv, .to, .md).
> Why, then, should both these types of TLDs appear as different
> constituencies, all the while shoving educational/organizational/non-profit
> and personal interests into one grouping?
Very good question. ANd one that there is likely never to be a good
or honest answer to. But you can be sure that there will be plenty of
posturing sort of answers to....
> Reminds me of the camel, which was really a horse designed by a committee.
Maybe we should adopt the "Joe Camel" as the symbol of the ICANN? >;)
> Ellen Rony Co-author
> The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com
> ======================== // =============================
> ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5010
> email@example.com \ ) Tiburon, CA
> On the Internet, // \\ no one knows you're a dog.
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208