Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu

[Bruce James <bmj@keyname.net>]

Sandy:

You have a great start, but I hate to limit the ICANN BoD. This new ccTLD
should pay the same fees to ICANN that the other ccTLDs pay. I am not too
sure VRSN should be the back office, but it could be.

IMHO.....:)

/Bruce
"Let us reason together."


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy Harris" <sandy@storm.ca>
To: "Bruce James" <bmj@keyname.net>
Cc: "[GA]" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 12:16
Subject: Re: [ga] .ie Seeks to Organize Irish Bid to Run .eu


> Bruce James wrote:

> I think that ICANN should assign dot.EU to the European Commission and let
it decide
> who will run it.....IMHO

If that were a motion, I'd second it. However, it doesn't seem to be, so
I'll
propose my own:

 ICANN should immediately inform the European Commission that .eu will be
created
 at their request, and instruct Verisign to make preparations to have it
running
 within two working days of receipt of such a request.

 The letter informing them of this should specify (possibly by reference to
 existing documents) what name server and other information must be provided
and
 what administrative procedures will be required to authenticate the
request.

 Any charges involved should be no more than a reasonable administration
fee.

Do I have a second? Debate?

I see no reason and admin fee should be more than about $100, 50 bucks each
for
clerical work at ICANN and an hour's system admin time at Verisign. I
wouldn't
argue if someone with better knowledge than mine of ICANN and Verisgn
systems
said $1000 was justified, though.

Nor do I see any reason this needs much discussion. The domain makes sense
and the organisation seems quite likely to be competent to administer it.


--
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