Dear Leslie While looking for further IETF input could you explain to me (and may be some others have not fully understod it either) what means the second statement originated from IETF; especially that on "further flatten the tree". > > If ICANN at large voting "membership" is important, tying it to > > second- or third-level domain name registrations could lead to > > the creation of more registrations that are not tied to functioning > > domains. It would then also tend to further flatten the tree. Neither > > of these is desirable. With kind regards Tapio ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leslie Daigle" <leslie@THINKINGCAT.COM> To: <azucena.hernandez@POP3.TELEFONICA.ES> Cc: <pso-pc@ties.itu.ch> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 7:18 PM Subject: Re: Comments to the ALSC > > Thank you, Azucena, for your efforts in reconciling the viewpoints. > > I will look for broader IETF input before commenting further, but > will note already that: > > > PSO-PC has no strong objections to restrict the membership of the > > proposed ALSO to "those individuals holding a domain name". > > is not consistent with: > > > While the ALSC report concludes that this is a problem for e-mail > > based voter registration, it is our opinion that existing technical > > systems are not sufficient for precluding the same behaviour in > > individual domain registration based systems. > > > > If ICANN at large voting "membership" is important, tying it to > > second- or third-level domain name registrations could lead to > > the creation of more registrations that are not tied to functioning > > domains. It would then also tend to further flatten the tree. Neither > > of these is desirable.