RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:34 PM
 
> 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.

Policies according to the original charter for ORG, are almost impossible to
maintain automagically. You stated this yourself, years ago. I was one of
those that agreed. In fact, none of the three charters are maintainable nor
are they scalable. This argument was made in defense of the accusation made,
against NSI, for allowing erosion of the com/net/org charters. I recall that
you put forth a defense for having ORG and NET become the overflow for COM,
as an NSI practice, at that time. This happened on the DOMAIN-POLICY list,
before ICANN was formed.

IMNSHO, most of the concern, that I see expressed, comes from a promise to
redefine, but not having presented the new definition(s). Yet, we are asked
to accept the new definition, no matter what it is. This is the equivalent
of buying a pig in a poke-sack. No wonder folks are uneasy about it... duh!

The whole thing looks like an end-run, around the DNSO and the @large. The
disturbing thing is that is by-passes a great deal of policy discussion and
removes some policy control from the ICANN.

--
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