RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Roberto, thanks for your post.

It may be that the preferred outcome of the stakeholders will be to leave
.org alone, and start anew.  I didn't mean to rule out that option by
suggesting that the "policy" for .org should be worked out (IF option B was
chosen, sorry, should have said that in my original post as well), by the
community of stakeholders, and that would need to include the non-commercial
constituency.  That would be the case, I'd think, even if there was/were a
"new" non commercial TLD(s) in the future.

Your point about different pricing options between initial registration and
renewal was also useful as an idea.  That is the kind of thing I'd assume
would be taken up, IF the discussion ever came about. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:ga_chair@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 4:36 AM
To: mcade@att.com; marc@venster.nl; ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN


Marylin,

>
>-- 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.

What's wrong in letting .org alone, and and work within the ICANN 
process/policy development process to undertake to develop the policy for *a

future TLD dedicated to non-commercial organizations*?
From what I understand, this is already the orientation in the non-com 
constituency, and already some time ago there has been discussion there 
about the proposal of such a TLD (.ngo was proposed as an example).
Frankly, I think that this discussion about the future of .org is a little 
out of place for the time being: it assumes that a decision for option B has

already been taken by the Board ;>)


>--Of course, I do think that those already registered need to be
>grandfathered but I would expect them/us to participate in the policy
>development process. :-)

See above.
Why should we open the can of worms of changing the charter en-route, 
artificially creating the problem of the existing registrations (or the 
coexistence of organizations fulfilling the charter and not) instead of 
having a brand new TLD?
Somebody can give me a reason? - other than that the ICANN Staff and/or 
VeriSign has already decided so ;>)


>--as for cost of domain names, and what that will turn out to be: Costs 
>vary
>now, from ccTLD to ccTLD, and from registrar to registrar.  I think the
>existing contracts with the new incoming TLDs covers the pricing issue,
>doesn't it?

I guess that Marc's point was that if additional effort is required in 
checking adherence to the charter and qualifications of the applicant 
registrant, the cost of the registration process is expected to rise, and 
hence the price of a domain name.
Of course, we may think of a different model, where the cost of the initial 
registration is higher, but the renewal fee is lower.

Best regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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