Re: [ga] various comments

["Jon Lawrence" <jon@jonlawrence.com>]

Half parent?  Neustar owns 90% of Neulevel...they even refer to Neulevel
as a "subsidiary".


>-- Original Message --
>Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 11:34:41 -0400
>From: t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>
>To: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: Re: [ga] various comments
>
>
>by felicitous coincidence, joe's message was #666 is my mailbox. :)
>
>anyway, gary made the point, but i'd like to underscore it. if, as
>joe says, the 'stability of the DNS' is the archimedean star guid-
>ing all of ICANN's action, that pretty much rules out handing .org 
>to neulevel, whose half-parent is dotbombing as we speak. 
>
>cheers,
>t
>
>jsims@JonesDay.com (Thu 05/23/02 at 08:20 AM -0400):
>
>> 4.  On the .org example, this is a really good illustration of the
>> different roles of the policy development bodies of ICANN and the Board.
>> The former are made up of representatives of specific private interests;
>> the latter is made up of people who are charged (and in joining the Board
>> agree to act accordingly) with representing the public interest as a
whole.
>> There was lots of work put into this issue by volunteers, but in trying
>to
>> ensure that the appropriate poitical compromises were made between the
>> various interests represented, the working group lost sight of the #1
goal
>> of everything ICANN does -- the continued stable operation of the DNS.
>> There are 3 million registrants in .org, and their continued well-being
>--
>> their right to be certain that their registrations will continue to
>> effectively function under a new registry operator -- is and must be
the
>> principal criteria of any redelegation.  Once that goal is ensured, then
>we
>> can think about other things, although it is hard for me to imagine that
>it
>> would ever be appropriate to charge registrants significantly more than
>> cost for the purpose of creating a fund to subsidize someone's idea of
>a
>> good cause.  What the Board said in Accra is:  "Continued stable operation
>> of .org is the primary decisional criteria for selecting a new registry
>> operator."  In doing so, the Board (whose responsibility to to act in
the
>> best interests of the entire ICANN community, including in particular
those
>> registrants that do not otherwise participate in ICANN but nevertheless
>are
>> affected by its actions) simply applied the ICANN mission parameters
to
>> this particular issue.  You will notice that the RFP documents otherwise
>> reflect much of the recommended approach and language.
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>





--
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