Dr Eberhard W Lisse a �crit:
>
> Actually you may recall that I made the definition in Monterrey of "Write
> Permission to a Zone File".
That's right. I'd forgotten. Well, you and Stef can fight over who
gets the banana, although "write permission" isn't quite good enough
because of the TC problem that you discuss below. I argued at first
with Stef's definition for the same reason.
> In the RFC 1591 a "Domain Manager" entity is mentioned. That one is the
> "Domain Holder" as far as I am concerned.
Sounds alright. So shall we rename the constituency "non-commercial
domain managers"? Or how about "non-commercial SLD (in gTLDs) and
3rdLD (in gSLDs under ccTLDs) managers"? That would make it the
NCSIGATIGSUCM constituency (not to be pronounced as an acronym, for
obvious reasons).
> This however poses just a tiny weeny little problem to many of those
> commercial ccTLDs where the TC-Machine hires a body in-country to fill the
> AC spot whereafter he is never heard from again.
A problem which will grow as the Internet grows and as new TLDs are
added.
> We have .CUL.NA where we classify entities which are involved with the
> preservation of Namibia's national heritage. (The National Museum which is
> actually .GOV.NA falls under .CUL.NA and operates the zone).
Careful with .CUL.NA. Cul, in French, means "backside".
> We have .ALT.NA for individuals (non-profit).
What does ALT. stand for?
> So, to make a long story short, what I suggest is to define the
> constituencies (somehow) *AND* prefix the lot with something to the effect
> that if an entity fits into more then one, the most specific one is to be used
Oh, no. That's no good. Much too reasonable. What we need is to let
everyone join as many constituencies as they like. That way, there
will be division and divisiveness, and constant in-fighting and
tension over nothing, to the great benefit of those pulling the
strings.
