RE: [wg-c] registry contracts

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Tony, I know you know a lot about telecommunications.  Far more than I do,
since I've always been in the computer and Internet space even within my
company.  but what's the point here?  You are proposing that what happened
in a highly regulated environment is the model? Ouch!  Not what you meant,
right?  

-----Original Message-----
From: A.M. Rutkowski [mailto:amr@netmagic.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 1999 7:50 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'William X. Walsh'; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; Christopher Ambler
Subject: RE: [wg-c] registry contracts


At 10:03 PM 11/13/99 , Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>I thought I was saying that the definition fell within technical
>coordination. Interesting to consider that you think it is outside, and
that
>would be an extension of ICANN's authority. Marilyn

Dear Marilyn,

In addition to the reasons expressed by others
that this is outside the scope of ICANN's purposely
narrow technical authority, the history of the policy
making proceedings in this area made it plain that the
for-profit vs. not-for-profit criterion was an
impermissible constraint on businesses providing
services in this sector.

Consider for a moment if such a requirement were
imposed on interexchange carriers because they were
somehow essential or denominated by some other contrived
means.

--tony