[DTC CSC] Member/Liaison definitions

[Martin Boyle]

No votes for liaisons.  (No votes at all should be the rule, but the registry voice should not be overruled by the liaisons.)

From: dt3-bounces at icann.org [mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Staffan Jonson
Sent: 04 June 2015 14:20
To: Kim Davies; Donna Austin
Cc: dt3 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [DTC CSC] Member/Liaison definitions

Kim
We’ve had some extra effort keeping away all kinds of interests from this minimal functions, so I would not recommend any new full members. It would risk opening up a Lot. If there’ll be discussion on outnumbering (i.e. voting similar behavior), then we’re already lost.

Staffan J

Från: dt3-bounces at icann.org<mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:dt3-bounces at icann.org] För Kim Davies
Skickat: den 4 juni 2015 04:04
Till: Donna Austin
Kopia: dt3 at icann.org<mailto:dt3 at icann.org>
Ämne: Re: [DTC CSC] Member/Liaison definitions

Hi Donna,


There is one caution that I have with regard to this. Our members will be outnumbered by Liaisons by 4 to 5, so if Liaisons are participating on equal footing it could get tricky.

As RSSAC is a direct customer perhaps we elevate them to ‘member’, and similarly for the RIRs which offered a Liaison through the public comment.

Sorry for the curve ball, but I’d appreciate any thoughts any of you might have.

For what it’s worth, in the context of the IANA naming functions I think we have more customer interactions with .INT registrants, and the IAB in the context of .ARPA, than we do with root server operators which probably represent ~0.1% of requests (<1 request per year)

kim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/dt3/attachments/20150604/1ea23c6c/attachment.html>