Re: [council] Suggestion re .org TF report

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

Philip:
We already have a policy the intent of which is 
supported by most constituencies. We simply have 
to find a way to make it conform to the template
contracts.

In other words, we are dealing narrowly with the problem 
of the sponsored or unsponsored status of dot org.

The Noncommercial constituency has been discussing
this issue for six months, and the Task force has been
doing it for three or four. The suggestion of "restrictions
with grandfathering" was debated at length, and in our
judgement is not feasible. I could explain why at greater
length, but that kind of discussion should take place on the
TF list where it belongs.

Would you agree with me that major changes in the
consensus, suggested off the cuff and by people who have
not been privy to prior discussions, is not the way to 
conclude this process? 

>>> "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> 12/18/01 03:13AM >>>
I believe Cary has raised a good point on dot org.
There is indeed a difference between protecting past registrants
(grandfathering) and no restriction on future applicants.

If the tricky thing with dot org is indeed the legacy problem of past
registrants, I am inclined to support Cary's thinking. Can the TF agree to
limit the protection of registrants ill suited to the character of dot org,
to past registrants only?

Philip (personal capacity)