Michael
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Sondow writes:
> Dr Eberhard W Lisse a =E9crit:
> >
> > 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.
Power to whoever controls the Write Permission :-)-O
> > 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).
What's in a name? Non Commercial Domain Holders is quite fine. It's
the entity that is the Domain Manager who is the Domain Holder.
>
> > 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.
Nope. Because new TLDs will be commercial. I predict that commercial
ccTLDs will become less actually.
>
> > 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".
So what do I care?
> > We have .ALT.NA for individuals (non-profit).
>
> What does ALT. stand for?
If I remember correctly, ALT.DE was sort of an alternative domain for
individuals and that's the fun in being a Domain Coordinator, I can
choose what I like :-)-O
> > 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.
Ok, let's appoint the K*nt to chair the drafting committee for the
constituency definitions :-)-O.
el
