Re: [ga] New FAQs Posted

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@hi-tek.com>]

I do not want to be duped by anyone regarding this .org issue but my reading of
the faqs simply does not support antangonism toward the proposal.  I am only
saying this toward the specific issue of reorganizing the .org.  I just do not see
any change in ICANN policy.

Please point out the CHANGE that will be become effective upon the new agreements.
Not later if and maybe.

Sincerely,

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Chuck,
>
> Quite the contrary.  The seem to CONFIRM the concerns.
>
> Based on this fact alone, Plan B needs to be rejected because it opens
> the door to this kind of change in policy which will certainly be
> against the best interests of the internet community.
>
> Friday, March 23, 2001, 12:40:20 PM, 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 believe that the answers given may alleviate some peoples' concerns about
> > contemplated changes to the .org registry and the .org TLD as related to the
> > proposed new agreements with VeriSign.  I think that FAQs #12 and #13 may be
> > of particular interest.

--
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