Re[4]: [ga] collisions in namespace (was gTLD Constituency)

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Roeland,

Thursday, April 12, 2001, 8:36:10 PM, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> DOC thought and Adnrew Pincus opinion is one thing, an actual vote and
> action is another. Please, do not under-cut the significance of this BoD
> action. My reading of the Verign contract did not reveal many of the
> conditions that Pincus recommended, FWIW. Further, it is a legal document
> defining specific terms. Being the first such document, it is also the model
> from which all other TLD registry contracts should be modeled. It sets the
> precedent. The ICANN BoD should have a difficult time nullifying that
> precedent. Policies, both implied and explicit, are now set within that
> document.

This presumes that the BoD cares about consistency in it's decisions.

You should know by now that is not the case.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.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