RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted

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

Roland,

I agree that the .org issues are clearly policy issues that should be
decided through the DNSO consensus building process.  In the latest FAQs
posted by ICANN, that is what will happen.  So there certainly does not seem
to be an end run around that process.  Also, for such a process to be done
well, it will take a great deal of time.  But I believe  there is nothing in
the new .org agreement that anyway bypasses or removes any of the .org
policy control from ICANN or the community in any significant way unless you
think these requirements do that: the new registry will be a non-profit
organization, VeriSign cannot be associated with the new registry in any
way, the new registry needs to begin operation not later than January 1,
2003, the new registry will have $5M start-up for operating costs, and the
new registry will be able to use VeriSign Registry's global resolution and
distribution facilities.

Chuck  

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com] 
Sent:	Saturday, March 24, 2001 5:56 AM
To:	'Gomes, Chuck'; 'marc@venster.nl'
Cc:	'ga@dnso.org'
Subject:	RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted

> 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