RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted

[Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001, at 07:34 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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, 

In itself maybe not, but by implication (as in the FAQ), it *is* a
policy issue.

-- 
marc@schneiders.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
 http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

> 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