Re: [ga] .ORG Names

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Kent and all remaining assembly members,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> 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.

  This is a nice prepared political statement, that basically says nearly
nothing and does not directly address the status of .ORG should it
be spun off or be under the management of a new registry.  Hence
such a statement is of little value, and does not address the issue
of .ORG in advance of any new registry managing .ORG in the potential
future.  That simply is not adequate....

>
>
> 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:

  In Louis's opinion of course...  Well that is all well and fine, but I for
one am not buying into it.  It seems that many others are not as well...

>
>
>     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.

  ANd this is where the "Rub" is, isn't it...  the ICANN BoD has to a great
degree taken it's lead from their staff before any review process, and
sometimes
despite any review process from the DNSO GA, the DNSO Constituencies, as
well as the @large membership, can be done.

>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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