Onno Hovers a �crit:
> Milton has a good point there. Trademark interests should not be put in
> a special membership class.
>
> I also think that the registry membership class should be merged with the
> registrar membership class into a domain name services provider class.
> Putting gTLD registries in a special membership class and registries in
> another will just be stacking the deck, since the relative role and power
> of registries and registries is one of the hottest issues. On one end
> there is the all powerful registry model of the ORSC and on the other
> end there is the all powerful registrar model of CORE. And the ccTLDs
> have special interests of their own.
>
> If specific special interests are given special representation, the
> DNSO can not be viewed as a fair organization. A better division into
> membership classes would be in (my opinion):
>
> 1. domain name service provider membership class
> ccTLD registries, existing and prospective gTLD registries,
> registrars
> internet providers
>
> 2. special interest membership class
> special interest organizations (INTA, DNRC, EFF, ...)
>
> 3. general membership class
> other businesses
> individuals
Your proposal is interesting, and the logic behind it sound. Why don't you
send it to the DNSO, via the discuss, comments, and proposals lists?
BTW, the DNSO leadership is presently drafting a new DNSO application
proposal merging the DNSO consensus application with the INTA proposal.
People like you who object to the INTA being given special consideration
should make their views felt.
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
