Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>]

Dave,

>

>Ignoring entirely the matter of precise wording, since when does an

>NSI

>letter dictate an ICANN decision?

>

That's a good question ;>)

Seriously, the letter from Sclavos seems to imply that part of the agreement for .org is the change in its management (see below).

We would agree to terminate our operation of the registry for .org on December 31, 2002 and to cooperate with ICANN in transitioning .org to management by a new, non-profit organization representing the global universe of non-profit organizations. Among the issues to be determined in this transition is whether .org should be limited to registrations only by non-commercial entities, and if so, what transition arrangements need to be established for those existing registrants that would not qualify under that limitation. ICANN has agreed that, at a minimum, existing registrants would be permitted to remain in the new .org registry for one renewal cycle under its new management.

What puzzles me, is that "ICANN has agreed that..." strictly means that there has been a discussion, if not a negotiation.

Now, were I the Chairman of the ICANN Board, I would have immediately replied to Mr. Sclavos that, even if his proposal is interesting, what ICANN will decide for the future of .org is none of his business.

The fact that I did not see so far neither a formal letter, nor even a statement in Melbourne on the subject, makes me think that ICANN agrees with this approach.

Joe Sims, in fact, presented this as an advantage of the solution "B" (the new contract). And this makes me even more suspicious.

Why should the new .org operator be forced to do what NSI was supposed to do since the beginning, and never did (or at least stopped doing pretty soon) because it was too costly? There must be a reason, methinks.

Is the reason the "pressure from the Internet community to restore the original function of .org"? No way. I believe that that the only sensible thing to do is to let it continue as is. If we really think that a specific TLD has to be reserved to non-commercial organizations, we just have to create one for the specific purpose, instead of redesigning .org.

>d/

>

>ps. In any event it would be far more productive to focus on the

>actual

>terms and conditions of the proposed changes for NSI, rather than

>being

>distracted by decisions that would be made later and not by NSI.

>

The fact that the Registry that will inherit .org must be a non-profit is spelled out in 5.1.4.

IANAL, but I believe that if ICANN wants to change this, Verisign may refuse to pay the $5M.

Regards

Roberto

 

---

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

--
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