[council] Re: Suggestion re .org TF report

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

Stuart:
Thanks for trying to help. I think a lot of people 
are thinking along the same lines you suggested. 
I have already initiated consultations within my
own constituency on almost exactly the concept
you propose.

There is, however, another way to meet Louis' insistence 
on a division of all TLDs into the categories "sponsored"
or "unsponsored." And that is to make newOrg conform
more completely to the sponsored model, by employing
a CEDRP and by delegating to the sponsoring organization
the authority to come up with its own WHOIS policy.
I have also put that alternative before my constituency
and hope to receive some feedback soon. 

We need to (VERY quickly) consider both of these
alternatives.

Long term, I will continue to resist the notion that all TLDs 
must be bound by the categorical division (sponsored/unsponsored)
that Louis insists upon. However, in my judgement the 
immediate problem of getting .org divested ON SCHEDULE 
far outweighs any benefit that might accrue from engaging 
in this debate now. We can save it for the next round of
new TLDs, which I'm sure will be happening soon. ;-)

>>> "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn@icann.org> 12/17/01 01:26AM >>>
I have been following with interest the deliberations on the report
of the .org Task Force of the Names Council, in particular the
recommendation that the new structure be sponsored yet unrestricted. 
I have a friendly suggestion to make that may be helpful to the Task 
Force's and the Names Council's deliberations. Please feel free to 
share this note with the Task Force.