RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

But I disagree here:
On 11:36 25/03/01, Roberto Gaetano said:

>>-- 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 ;>)

The fact that .org is concerned the way it is by plan B is one of the 
reasons to oppose Plan B: it is just one of the fruits of the Plan B tree.
Jefsey

--
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