Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org fromunrestricted to restricted (fwd)

[Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, at 16:26 [=GMT-0800], Kent Crispin wrote:

> The charter of .org (whatever it might be or whether there even is one)
> is independent of the entity (whatever it might be) that runs the TLD.  
> The only thing mentioned in the contract is that there is a presumption 
> that a non-profit entity would run .org.  There is no statement 
> whatsoever about the policies that might or might not be adopted for 
> .org.

A faq (http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm) is
not a contract, sure. But why does ICANN deal with the matter
in the context of this contract at such length, if it isn't
relevant? The statements in the faq may have no legal force. But must
we assume that they are meaningless? And if we do not agree with
possible *implications* (explicit or not in a contract), why can't we
protest against them now, before it is too late? The ball is already
rolling...

Protest is the only answer. See my .sig ...

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


--
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