Re: [ga] CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS REJECT ICANN'S ONE ROOT 'POLICY'

[JINTLAW@aol.com]

I don't interpret it that way at all.  

To me (and I stress this is a personal opinion) it means that those who operate on the alternate root should not be prevented from applying to be in the authoritative root.  

Put yet even another way, in the event that an alternate root would like to become part of the authoritative root and live by all of the rules that the authoritative root TLDs live by, it should not be prevented from doing so (i.e., subject to consensus policies, SLAs, Sanctions, Escrow, mandatory financial commitments, UDRP, etc.).  

It is NOT an endorsement by Congress of the alternate roots, nor is it any enorsement that ICANN should avoid collisions and be constrained the alternate roots that are already operated.

Thus, it is my personal opinion that ICP-3 and the Congressional statement do not contradict each other. 
--
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