Position on ITLDs

  > "Mike Norris" <mnorris at hea.ie> writes:
  > 
  > Classic answer, Daniel - fire back some questions to them.

Well Mike, these weren't just some questions.
They ask for the information I think I need before
spending NCC resources on this issue. I need this information
to justify doing this to the contributors. As you may recall
from the discussion at the last contributors meeting, things like
this are considered on the fringe of the NCC's mandate.

  > Dave is right too, they should have a specialist on this.

More than one. The most dangerous thing is policy makers 
makingpolicy advised by the clueless or even the clueful
with particular interests only.  And I beleive that they 
are trying to do just that - get more opinions in. 
BTW: Do not assume DGXIII or even Mr. Ricci is not reading 
this. They may very well be.

  > It might be worth pointing out that the position of RIPE
  > wrt European TLD registries is quite different from that
  > of the Internic with all TLD registries.  Neither RIPE
  > nor any of its WGs nor the NCC are DNS registries in any
  > sense.  This is something the EC and others may be confused
  > about, given the role of the RIPE NCC in IP address
  > registration.

That is true. RIPE ha no executive role in this, only and advisory one.

  > At the same time, RIPE should not use your quite reasonable
  > reply to mask its views on some of the questions concerning
  > the proposal from J Postel for new TLDs and registries.  The
  > DNS WG has strong views on this, backed by RIPE, and these
  > should be made known.

that was the point of my original issue. To repeat:

1) Do we have the final wordsmithed version  of the position
discussed at the lat meeting? If not when will we have it?

2) In the absence of that should I go and tell them what I think
the position is? Could the chair(s) do that? Should I wait ?

I'd appreciate (personal if you wish) feedback from the group and
preferably the chair(s).

Daniel