jfleming at anet.com
Sat Nov 24 19:53:30 CET 2001
On the Next Generation Internet, these debates are not needed.
The .EDU Community (or constituency) people know who they are. Hint: mueller at syr.edu
The .ORG Community (or constituency) people know who they are. Hint: touton at icann.org
The .COM Community (or constituency) people know who they are. Hint: kent at songbird.com
While your Proof-of-Concept structures are interesting, they do not scale.
Also, as you can see, for some reason, people try to game the system to
match up with their financial goals. When that occurs, then people can go
make their own TLD, such as ICANN and then you have:
Mueller at ncc.icann
touton at ncc.icann
kent at ncc.icann
....which better reflects the state of affairs.
Kent Crispin..."Additionally, I own Songbird, a consulting and web support company. ICANN is a client."
It all boils down to fairness.
Which list do you think is more fair ?
The "toy" IPv4 Internet Early Experimentation Allocations ?
The Proof-of-Concept IPv8 Allocations ?
Why would people pay for Address Space, when it is FREE ?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>; <touton at icann.org>; <kent at songbird.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] FYI
> A clear and hard-won part of the
> NCDNHC charter is that we exclude from
> membership eligibility organizations
> that are voting members of other
> DNSO constituencies. We were forced
> to do this in the early stages of
> DNSO formation, when ccTLDs,
> registrars, and other interest groups
> packed our constituency meeting in
> Berlin with the idea that they
> could expand their representation on
> the Names Council by colonizing the three
> NCDNHC seats. I am sorry to put it so
> baldly, but that,s exactly what was
> happening and everyone knew it.
> That policy has been reasonably
> successful at protecting the integrity
> of the NCDNHC and establishing within
> ICANN a clear vote and voice for non
> commercial interests.
> >From its inception the constituency has
> established online review of membership
> applications. Some of our practices are
> informal outgrowths of that review process.
> Specifically, we have for some time
> established a precedent that organizations
> that legitimately span the NCDNHC and
> other constituencies must appoint another
> voting representative. Rather than attacking
> this policy, you should recognize and welcome
> it as an attempt to soften the exclusion
> policy to accommodate legitimate organizations.
> The "Potter Yachters" organiyation appears to
> be nothing more than a vehicle for you to gain
> voting status in NCDNHC. If you are unable to
> find another member of this so-called organization
> to represent its "interests" in domain names
> I suggest that the legitimacy of its status
> as an organization might be in question.
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
More information about the Ncuc-discuss