Re: [nc-org] Version 3.0 of policy statement

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

>>> Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org> 09/24/01 10:08PM >>>
Could we add at the end "or to transfer them to others"?

MM===> It is ok with me. Others? 

> The DNSO encourages applicants to propose governance 
> structures that provide ORG registrants with the 
> opportunity to directly participate in the selection 
> of officers and/or policy-making council members.

Could this be slightly stronger? As it stands, it can be ignored.

MM ===> How about: "The DNSO requires applicants to propose
governance structures that provide ORG registrants
with...."

The phrasing may be interpreted as excluding any applicant that hasn't
raised a lot of funds in advance. 

MM ===> The rights of 2.8 million customers to good service cannot
be compromised in any way. If that takes money, so be it.
However, there are transitional measures in the divestiture agreement
that soften the blow. Any legitimate prospect should be able to obtain
financing based on a very strong revenue stream.

MS: The new operator of ORG should perhaps have the ability to stop using
certain registrars that refuse (again and again) to take notice of the
marketing efforts?

MM ===> See my response to Guillermo. I think the registrars 
need to weigh in on this. I am not opposed to the idea, but am
concerned about adding cost and restriction and bureaucracy to
the administration of ORG. 

MS: And also participate in the process of selection? I know this has been
shot down somewhere along the road. Is the above the ultimate to
suggest?

MM ===> If it gets some support from additional TF members.....