Re: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

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

I am sorry Mr. Walsh but you must back up these statements with at least a little
bit of facts.  I have reread the faqs and I still challenge anyone to educate me
on my assumption that this proposes no fundamental changes.

Again there are very important issues regarding the contracts and we should not be
distracted, intentionally or untentionally by non-issues.

Sincerely,

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Marilyn,
>
> Friday, March 23, 2001, 5:18:02 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > -- I think that we should be willing to work within the ICANN process/policy
> > development process to undertake to develop the policy for .org. That sounds
> > like  a  process where the non-commercial constituency would want to be
> > heavily involved--as well as probably many from the non commercial side who
> > aren't yet involved.
>
> Changing the policy for a long standing top level domain like this is
> absolutely NOT something that should even be considered.
>
> The policy statements already on the staff FAQ are inconsistent with
> the historical record, which is being twisted to support what is
> becoming clear is already a predecided issue as far as ICANN and
> Verisign are concerned.
>
> Grandfather or not, this entire suggestion is inappropriate.
>
> .org is a GENERIC top level domain.  Any such change after so many
> years of it being that would be grossly inappropriate.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.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

--
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