Re: [council] Needs clarification about Agreement between Verisign and ICANN regarding .ORG Divesture

[Louis Touton <touton@icann.org>]

Vany,

I think a couple of qualifications should be made concerning the
document at the URL you gave.  First, before they were finalized the
proposed VeriSign registry agreements underwent two sets of revisions
after the document was written as a result of public comment.  The final
text of the agreements is authoritative.  Second, as was noted at the
Melbourne meeting, the last sentence in section D.2 of the document
("The net result of this would be a .org registry returned, after some
appropriate transition period, to its originally intended function as a
registry operated by and for non-profit organizations.") is not worded
as carefully as it should be.  For example, the successor .org registry
operator could, if the community chose, be a for-profit entity, although
that would make the endowment unusable.  Decisions about how to operate
.org, for what purpose(s), and what entity should be the operator are
all topics that participants in the DNSO should be discussing.

Best regards,

Louis Touton



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Needs clarification about Agreement between
Verisign and   ICANN regarding .ORG Divesture
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:48:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Vany Martinez <vany_martinez@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: ceo@vany.org
To: Louis Touton <touton@icann.org>, council@dnso.org

Hi Louis:

> I believe that the text you quoted earlier is an
> explanation of the
> provisions of the (then proposed) revised
> ICANN-VeriSign registry
> agreements.

Yes, specifically the part 

D. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Does "the substance of the proposed amendments" made
by ICANN as stated in:

http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm
      

are still valid regarding what should be the net
results of .ORG after its divesture?

Thanks again :-)

Best Regards
Vany





> I hope this helps,
> 
> Louis Touton
> 
> 
>