Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 03:31:03AM +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, at 16:26 [=GMT-0800], Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > The charter of .org (whatever it might be or whether there even is one)
> > is independent of the entity (whatever it might be) that runs the TLD.  
> > The only thing mentioned in the contract is that there is a presumption 
> > that a non-profit entity would run .org.  There is no statement 
> > whatsoever about the policies that might or might not be adopted for 
> > .org.
> 
> A faq (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm) is
> not a contract, sure. But why does ICANN deal with the matter
> in the context of this contract at such length, if it isn't
> relevant?

Because there was a big stir in the community, and so they devoted some 
space in the FAQ to address the concerns that had been expressed.

> The statements in the faq may have no legal force. But must
> we assume that they are meaningless?

What are you talking about? The statements in the FAQ explicitly state
that *any* change to policies in .org would only come through community
consensus. 

-- 
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