Re: [ga] .ORG Names

[marc@venster.nl]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, at 14:28 [=GMT-0800], Kent Crispin wrote:

> 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. 

It would be great and very helpful for the further discussion, if
ICANN would send out something reassuring about this. Say a *clear*
message from the chairman?

-- 
marc@schneiders.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
 http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


--
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