<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] .ORG Names
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 04:11:26PM -0500, Kendall Dawson wrote:
> At 11:05 AM 3/15/2001 -0800, you wrote:
> >They are not considering such a change.
> >
> >Yes, the proposal contains some language that can be misinterpreted that
> >way, but no one is going to get their .org name taken away because they
> >are not a non-profit.
> >
> >d/
>
>
> Do you have any evidence to back this statement up?
See Louis Touton's letter to the Names Council,
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00899.html:
The only substantive "policy" issue (of the type to be referred to
a Supporting Organization under the bylaws) that appears to be
raised by the proposed revisions is the future restrictions (if any)
on .org, but if the VeriSign proposal is accepted that will in fact
be the subject of ICANN process, including the DNSO, over the next
year, and it does not require any action at this time.
Louis' preceeding letter,
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00894.html, explains
very succinctly why the agreements themselves do not involve
substantive policy changes:
There are a variety of changes between the existing registry
agreement and the three proposed ones, but they either (a) are not
matters of policy (trimming back the .net extension from November
2007 to January 2006 is an example of this); (b) involve the
continuation of present policy (allowing the continued common
ownership, with strict operational separation, is an example of
this); or (c) simply bring VeriSign into line with the policies that
were developed as a result of the new TLD program, which was
initially considered in the DNSO (the conformance of the proposed
.net and .org agreements to the new TLD template is an example of
this).
The sound and fury over the possibility of changes to the .org charter
comes from the ICANN staff's announcement at
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm,
where the future of .org is described as finding an appropriate
sponsoring agency to turn it over to. However, 1) this description is
preceeded by the very important caveat "through some procedure yet to be
determined"; and 2) this description is a high level summary in document
that is basically a call for discussion. I'm quite sure that the staff
wishes in hindsight that they hadn't been so creative there (personally
I believe that the document was prepared in a tremendous last-minute
rush), but the fact is that the legal documents themselves contain
absolutely no presumption about how .org should be managed.
--
Kent Crispin "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|