RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

I don't have any way of knowing what the fees might be.

I do believe though that it is very difficult to implement restrictions
unless there is a way to automate the process.  But if the restrictions must
be controlled manually, it won't scale.  If there is a small number of
names, scaling is not an issue.  The more the number of names increases the
more scaling becomes an issue.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: marc@venster.nl [mailto:marc@venster.nl]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 4:28 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: 'ga@dnso.org'
Subject: Re: [ga] New FAQs Posted


On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, at 15:40 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Considering that there has been a lot of concern expressed on this list
> regarding the changes proposed for the .org registry, for those who are
not
> aware, ICANN posted six additional FAQs today, all regarding .org
questions:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm

[...]

> I would also like to respond to a statement in FAQ #11: "Until 1996,
Network
> Solutions enforced the restrictions on .org registrations, but due to
NSI's
> resource limitations active enforcement of the restrictions was suspended
> early in that year. Since then, the restrictions have been enforced only
> through self-selection."  I happened to be around when the change was made
-
> it was made at the recommendation of Jon Postel.  He specifically
> recommended that we quit screening and allow users to self-select their
TLD.
> The problem with screening was that there was no meaningful and functional
> way to determine who met the criteria (the same applied to .net) and what
> was happening is that we were rewarding those willing to lie and
penalizing
> those who were honest.  To implement any sort of workable screening system
> (if it is even possible on a global scale) at a minimum would have been
very
> expensive and would have slowed down service levels significantly.

Does this mean that you also think that a restricted ORG, as now
suggested in the FAQ, would mean an increase in registration fees for
ORG domains? And that it will not work anyway? 

-- 
marc@pan.bijt.net
--
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