Re: [council] DRAFT NC position on Versign

["Oscar A. Robles Garay" <orobles@nic.mx>]

Here, you my find my personal comments:


I support most of the Peter's comments, although we should express our concerns about the process.

Also, I am interested in being more general, in one aspect that Peter mentioned, which is the CAPs issue. I would propose that any TLD (it doesn't matter it is a gtld o cctld) should be allowed to set them (CAPs) because it means the rich ones would pay less and the poor ones more.

Another, speaking about this sort of generalization, I recommend that ICANN refrain to negotiate agreements with single Registries. If we want a fair Internet, and promote competition, the way should be same conditions to every gTLD registry when it comes to policies.

So, if we just have two choices (A or B) I'd choose B, but it doesn't means it is the best solution, neither it means I fully support the way ICANN staff is conducting this negotiations with a single Registry.


	    Regards,

                Oscar A. Robles Garay
---------------------------------------------------------
Centro de Servicios de Informacion y Registro en Internet
   Direccion de Informatica    ITESM, Campus Monterrey
---------------------------------------------------------
   NIC-Mexico  Top Level Domain .MX  http://www.nic.mx
               Tel/Fax. +52(8)387-5346

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> Please find attached in Word a draft (and I emphasise draft) NC position on the Versign agreement. This is the input document for the NC teleconference 28 March.
>
> I have attempted to draw together the common threads from constituency positions and the GA. Everything in the position can be changed. Items of likely controversy are marked **.
>
> I will be off line for the next 24 hours or so - but lets keep substantive discussion for the teleconference.
>
> Philip.
>
>
> Philip Sheppard
> AIM - European Brands Association
> 9  av. des Gaulois  B-1040 Brussels
> Tel +322 736 0305 Fax +322 734 6702
>