Re: [nc-org] Re: Final (v. 3.2) ORG Policy Statement

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

i am good with this as well
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Guillermo Carey C." <gcarey@carey.cl>
To: <nc-org@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: [nc-org] Re: Final (v. 3.2) ORG Policy Statement


> I agree
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Cary Karp [mailto:ck@nrm.se]
> Enviado el: Martes, 02 de Octubre de 2001 8:21
> Para: nc-org@dnso.org
> Asunto: [nc-org] Re: Final (v. 3.2) ORG Policy Statement
> 
> 
> > Cary Karp wrote:
> > The notion of permitting third party complaint about the diligence
> > with which the SO is upholding its charter is entirely reasonable.
> > The purpose of the CEDRP is to provide such a mechanism.
> >
> > MM ===>
> > Another thought on this: it would seem that such complaints
> > are not against the domain name registrant, but a registrar
> > who violates the marketing policy. Could this be a way to
> > square the unrestricted/marketing focus circle?
> 
> Suggestion:
> 
> "Should not adopt, or be required by ICANN to adopt, dispute
> initiation procedures that could result in the cancellation of
> domain delegations. If it can be implemented in adherence with this
> principle, the newly introduced CEDRP may be adapted to ensure SO
> and registrar diligence in the maintenance of domain policy. The
> UDRP would apply as per #4 below."
> 
> /Cary
> 
> 
>