Re: [nc-org] ORG POLICY STATEMENT (FINAL) V3.3

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Dear Milton,

The item I suggest is the direct summary of dot org
implementation issue, to which I constributed
for the first time on 25 Sep, cf:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/msg00126.html

  And it is indeed the key issue. How do you implement a not for profit
  with 17 million USD of income, with customers worldwide.
  Political issue or not ?

Later in I developped more about implementation:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/msg00138.html

You answered this:
  MM ===> Maybe we are quibbling about semantics. What do you
  mean by "implementation?" If you mean that this Task Force defines
  the governance structure and registry contract in exhaustive detail and 
  tells the registry exactly what to do in all cricumstances, it is not possible, 
  nor desireable. 

At any moment I did not suggested, and indeed I do not,
to give exhaustive details for contract. I understood from the above
you will take my comment into account.

This TF is the only place - now and before it goes to the NC - 
to add that very simple item, which request for global
considerations about gTLD, and dot org implementation in our case.

I respectifuly request it is considered and added now.

Elisabeth
--



Milton wrote:
> 
> Elisabeth:
> Regretfully, I would prefer not to consider this 
> contribution at this time. There was a call for comments 
> on V3.2 and explicit notice that things would be 
> wrapped up on Tuesday. This came in on Wednesday.
> 
> I would be happy to bend the procedure and make 
> modifications if your comment addressed issues that 
> had been widely discussed before. But below, you 
> have raised a completely new issue. We have no idea 
> how other TF members feel about this proposal. We 
> cannot find out without extending discusson for 
> some time. 
> 
> I'm sure it was not your intention, but I do want to point
> out that it can be very disruptive to introduce 
> completely new proposals at the last minute. It delays work, 
> puts additional pressure on everyone involved, and risks 
> reducing the quality of the work output, because we may
> not be able to think about the implications properly.
> 
> If there is a groundswell of support for this comment I
> will reconsider, but otherwise I intend to transmit v 3.3 
> to the Names Council today, in line with the deadline
> for submission of documents.
> 
> You can still submit these comments during the public 
> comment period.
> 
> >>> Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr> 10/03/01 05:09AM >>>
> 
> 
> I am sorry I cound not comment before.
> I would like to add the following:
> 
> 
> 6. Security and international custodianship
> 
> The fair distribution of gTLD Sponsoring Organizations 
> and Registries Operators worldwide is essential element 
> of secure and reliable Internet.
> The TF specificaly asks that annual statistics being
> provided under ICANN authority for both, distribution 
> of domain names registered under gTLD by ICANN geographic 
> region as well as geographic distribution of gTLD Sponsoring 
> Organizations and Registries Operators.
> Such statistics shall be included in the RFP issued for 
> dot org.
> 
> 
> Elisabeth
> 
>