Re: [council] .ORG BC minority view

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Can anyone explain how can ex-post challenge be done practically
with success? Is there any previous experience?

YJ

> With respect to ex-post challenge.  There will be some cost in
administering
> this (investigation, evaluation of competing claims, documentation of the
> decision and, perhaps, some legal cost relating to unhappy parties).
Have
> you discussed where you think this cost should be best borne?   The
> challenger?  If challengers are successful have you thought about whether
> names should go directly to them, or back into the SRS?
>
> I think the idea has merit by the way.  I'm just wondering if you have
views
> on some of these details.
>
> Richard
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Forsyth [mailto:grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:37 PM
> To: 'Philip Sheppard'; NC (list)
> Subject: [council] .ORG BC minority view
>
>
> Fellow Names Council members
> At tomorrow's Names Council meeting, the Business Constituency intends to
> support the endorsement of the report of the Task Force on the divestiture
> of .org as consensus policy recommendations to the ICANN Board.
> While we support the key policy objectives embodied in the report, the BC
> has two remaining issues that we wish to communicate to the Board through
> the inclusion of a minority view being appended to the report.
>
> The BC would have the ICANN Board note that the BC:
> 1. Does support restricted access (applied in the least interventionist
> manner by way of ex-post challenge) to future new registrations as a
> practical means of defining the constituency of registrants.  Similarly,
the
> "Sponsored" model of organization responsible for the domain would seem to
> provide the best basis for meeting the wish of devolved policy development
> inherent in the TF's report.
>
> 2. Urges the Board to increase competition and diversity and encourage
> new investment in the provision of gTLD registry services, by ensuring the
> market position of existing dominant providers are not entrenched nor
> enhanced through participation in, taking an interest in, or contracting
to
> deliver critical services to, the new .org management organisation.
>
> These views have been discussed within the Task Force and will be tabled
at
> the Names Council meeting as a "friendly amendment". The purpose of this
> communication is to give notice of the BC's intent and also to alert other
> constituencies to the possibility of adding their support to the BC
minority
> view, should you want to.
>
> I look forward to joining you on the call
>
> Grant Forsyth
> BC Names Council Representative and BC member on the .org Task Force
>