RE: [nc-plan] Names Council Business Plan 2001-2002 Consultation

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Dany and colleagues:

Under # 2,

"> Make recommendations regarding same. Timeframe: 2001.
-
Not clear. Recommendations about what? to who?"

Any review and evaluation we make should include recommendations to the
ICANN Board. Such review may include, but is not limited to
Further Studies,
Advice as to whether to take a "more liberal" or "more conservative" stand
on proliferation of new TLDs, etc.

as for

"Review and and  evaluate the selection
criteria and pass-through costs for additional new applicants for new
gTLDs."

I am referring to the $ 50,000 application fee.

peter


-----Original Message-----
From: Dany Vandromme [mailto:vandrome@renater.fr]
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 7:13 AM
To: Peter de Blanc; 'NC plan'
Subject: Re: [nc-plan] Names Council Business Plan 2001-2002
Consultation


I agree partially with Peter.
See my comment below:
DV


on 6/01/01 6:44, Peter de Blanc at pdeblanc@usvi.net wrote:

> I'd like to propose adding/modifying  to Objectives:
>
> # 1. "UDRP. a) Review and evaluate the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy
and
> propose changes for consideration by the ICANN Board. Timeframe: 2001."
>
> b) "Consider need for further revisions in the light of the 2000 - 2001
> WIPO  process vs: opposing positions to WIPO process looking at issues
> involving domain names and property other than trademarks. Timeframe:
2001"
-
AGREE
-
>
> # 2, TLDs "Review and and  evaluate the proof of concept of the new TLD
> registries with respect to their impact on net users and the creation of a
> stable
> expanded domain name system with high user confidence.
-
AGREE
-
> Make recommendations regarding same. Timeframe: 2001.
-
Not clear. Recommendations about what? to who?
-

> Review and and  evaluate the selection
> criteria and pass-through costs for additional new applicants for new
> gTLDs."
-
This should be more specifically stated by addressing the role of DNSO, i.e.
Domain Name policy guidance to ICANN. Pass-through costs arguments may be
seen as related to contractual relationships between ICANN and
registries....
-
>
> 4 ccTLDs.
>
> Is this not covered under number (3) ? If not, let's not use the word
> "harmonization" because that implies that there is mandated  a dispute
> resolution policy.
-
I would prefer to keep the word "harmonization". not in the sense of an
imposed model, but for transparency reasons.
-
>
> "Monitor and advise the Board on the issues of
> dispute resolution and WhoIs policies within ccTLDs. Timeframe: 2001"
>
> peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-plan@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-plan@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Erica Roberts
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:18 PM
> To: Philip Sheppard; NC plan
> Subject: Re: [nc-plan] Names Council Business Plan 2001-2002
> Consultation
>
-
Looking forward for your comments
Dany
-


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dany VANDROMME                    |  Directeur du GIP RENATER

                Reseau National de Telecommunications
         pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche

                                  |  ENSAM
Tel   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
Fax   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31     |  75013 Paris
E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr |  FRANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------