Re: [nc-org] Final version of ORG policy statement for publiccomment

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

Woops, I just forgot the application fee issue.
Someone had raised that and I saw no support for
the idea of charging application fees. I will add something.

>>> Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org> 09/28/01 19:43 PM >>>
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, at 22:51 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote:

> Please, only minor language changes at this
> point. --MM

I am quite happy with the text. Thanks. Two typing errors, and one
thing at the end.


> NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
> 
> Statement of Policy (v 3.1, September 27, 2001) ...

> Specifically: the new entity:
> * Must not evict existing registrants who don't 
>   conform to its target ommunity. ...

Read: _c_ommunity

> 4. ICANN Policies
> .ORG's administration must be consistent with 
> policies defined through ICANN processes, such as 
> policies regarding registrar accreditation, shared 
> registry access, dispute resolution, and access to 
> registration contact data. The new entity must not 
> alter the technical protocols it uses in ways that 
> would impair the ability of accredited registrars to 
> sell names t end users.

Read: t_o_

> 5. Follow Up
> The DNSO Task Force developing ORG policy 
> should review the request for proposals prepared by the
> ICANN staff prior to its public dissemination to 
> ensure that it accurately reflects the DNSO policy. 
> Its approval is required before publishing the request
> for proposals.

Again: add here something about not barring applications by huge
application fees? Or is this included in 'approval ... request for
proposals'?

-- 
Marc@Schneiders.ORG