Re: [ga] New FAQs Posted

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Mark,
We are quite familiar with this type of enforcement in France because
the AFNIC uses to ask a "K-Bis" to ".fr" registrants. A "K-Bis" is a
document showing you are a business.

1. AFNIC has seveal times documented the cost of such a control.
    But I want to underline that ".fr" is French and the "K-Bis" formula
    is known only to the French. There are 244 countries out there
    and probably 100 pseudo countries (gerillas, etc...). Who will set
    the rules. They do not even succeed in having one interolcutor
    per ccTLD. Will that be again the US ruling the world?

2. The beauty of the French case is that the non-profits are the
     ones which have NOT a K-Bis document. They will have
     publication in the Offcial Paper... in French with very limited
     information whcih may change without having to be published.

3. The general beauty of that stupid proposition is that anyone
     may claim to head a "non declared" non profit association.
     Will iCANN ask the new Registry to hire scores of lawyers
     to investigate the reality of a non declared association in a
     country with a civilian war ?

     I am sure we will never see http://dalai-lama.org !!!

When you see the irrealism of the core of such a proposition and
the seriousness of the study of the side aspetcs you really want
to question the serious of the whole scheme and set-up.

Jefsey



On 22:28 23/03/01, marc@venster.nl said:
>On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, at 15:40 [=GMT-0500], 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 would also like to respond to a statement in FAQ #11: "Until 1996, 
> Network
> > Solutions enforced the restrictions on .org registrations, but due to NSI's
> > resource limitations active enforcement of the restrictions was suspended
> > early in that year. Since then, the restrictions have been enforced only
> > through self-selection."  I happened to be around when the change was 
> made -
> > it was made at the recommendation of Jon Postel.  He specifically
> > recommended that we quit screening and allow users to self-select their 
> TLD.
> > The problem with screening was that there was no meaningful and functional
> > way to determine who met the criteria (the same applied to .net) and what
> > was happening is that we were rewarding those willing to lie and penalizing
> > those who were honest.  To implement any sort of workable screening system
> > (if it is even possible on a global scale) at a minimum would have been 
> very
> > expensive and would have slowed down service levels significantly.
>
>Does this mean that you also think that a restricted ORG, as now
>suggested in the FAQ, would mean an increase in registration fees for
>ORG domains? And that it will not work anyway?
>
>--
>marc@pan.bijt.net
>
>--
>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