Re: [nc-org] Dot org

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

Cary & all...

the answer to your first question here is yes you are correct . this is
covered in the last statement  of my previous e-mail to wit  "it would seem
to me that there are adequate precedents in law to help mold policies &
guidelines to cover this situation"

there are adequate precedents (i.e. benchmarks,arks, guidelines, etc)  in
corporate law which should make it quite easy to define circumstances which
would allow transfer these "grandfathered"  domain names service contract
rights  to successor or surviving entities in mergers and acquisitions. I do
not feel at this point in time it is necessary to specifically elaborate on
them but there is a strong necessity to insure that these situations be
provided for in any re-delegation agreement.

ken stubbs
p.s apologize for any duplicate postings here



----- Original Message -----
From: "Cary Karp" <ck@nic.museum>
To: <nc-org@dnso.org>
Cc: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; <mcade@att.com>;
<grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>; "Mike Roberts" <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: [nc-org] Dot org


>
> One important point is covered with Ken Stubbs's observation, "there
> has to be provisions to insure that in the event of mergers or
> acquisitions, the survivor or acquiring entity has the right to
> transfer ownership rights in the service contract to themselves with
> the assurance that the character of the domain does not change (I.e.
> retention of "grandfather rights")."
>
> Am I correct in assuming that we should address this in a manner
> that doesn't risk creating an open market in grandfathered .org
> names?  Are there any other pivotal concerns under this heading?
>
> > And if the TF is comfortable with the type of passive
> > enforcement outlined by Mike Roberts.
>
> Is there a realistically implementable alternative?
>
> The legacy component of the registrant base will be exempted from
> restrictions and review, and thus won't encumber any enforcement
> mechanisms. The anticipated scope of the influx of new registrants
> should provide some basis for determining the feasibility of active
> alternatives. (This is being confronted head-on with .museum
> although I cannot suggest that the approach being implemented there
> would scale to a TLD of .org proportion.)
>
> /Cary
>