RE: [council] Re: Collisions in Namespace

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

Milton,

I think Philip is correct in his approach, as I'd like a clear assessment of
what the exact issue is that's of concern for an NC discussion -- is
it...consumer confusion, collision, or an indirect and hidden effort to
advocate for and encourage alternative roots.

I think we need to be clear on the issues, and then decide whether there is
even a need for a working group to discuss.

Theresa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Milton Mueller
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 3:52 PM
> To: philip.sheppard@aim.be; webmaster@babybows.com
> Cc: council@dnso.org
> Subject: [council] Re: Collisions in Namespace
>
>
> Philip:
>
> Please clarify what you have in mind for this "report." A 200-400
> word statement cannot do justice to the issues raised by conflcts
> in TLD strings. Nor can NC can take any meaningful positions
> based on discussions of such a report.
>
> What you will get from this process is simply an airing of prior biases.
>
> Why don't we take advantage of the strengths of bottom-up
> processes? Create an open working group, and see what it
> produces. It may, as I said, be unable to produce anything. But
> it may also result in some kind of compromise among parties who
> are now in disagreement and conflict over the issue. In the
> meantime, NONE of the NC's time is wasted.
>
> >>> "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> 04/13/01 03:04AM >>>
> Danny,
> thank you for re-raising the issue of possible consumer
> confusion/commercial
> rights problems with respect to the proposed ICANN dot biz and an earlier
> alternative root.
>
> In the first instance could you draft a short (say 200-400 words)
> description of the exact issue providing:
> a) background with names of the organisations concerned.
> b) an analysis of the issue arising as they may effect i) net
> users/consumers and ii) registries/ root owners.
>
> I will then table this for NC discussion in the first instance.
>
> Philip.
>
>
>