Dan and all,
We find it interesting that the ICANN can legitimately set any deadlines
when it is yet to completely constituted yet and has not the benefit
of a Individual Membership Organization to date and it's bylaws are
yet to be excepted as well.
Dan Steinberg wrote:
> Mikki,
>
> Sorry I don't have time to be more specific (maybe tomorrow).
> Here are some general principles that should overlay any DNSO
> structure:
>
> Grandfathering all existing TLDs in the root (any proposal that leads
> to instability will just run up against too many brick walls)
> Open Business Model (any proposal that madates not-for-profit or
> for-profit will run into too many brick walls)
> Registrar-registry breakout mandatory except for "true" ccTLDs (if we
> don't do this, there will be too many anti-trust considerations down
> the line. There is no technical reason, just doing our bit to stay
> oout of court)
> A more defined class for prospective registries like IOD, Iperdome,
> CORE, etc. (anything else will just prolong the DNS wars)
>
> A simpler organization than the current DNSO with names council and
> various officers. This has gotta be overkill.
>
> With the above, a DNSO should be able to garner broad support. I
> admit it isn't easy to merge the above with the existing proposal(s)
> on the table. And I apologize for leaving half-baked ideas on the
> table. Just someone else will have to run with the ball this time.
>
> BTW, the rediculously short deadline is only for stuff going through
> DNSO.ORG. If a compteting proposal is to go on the table, it only has
> to meet the ICANN deadlines.
>
> Mikki Barry wrote:
>
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
