RE: [wg-c] registry contracts

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I think that the previous persons mis-spoke. Of course we are here about
registry policies. But, I think that is what technical management is all
about, neh? The policies involved around managing technology?

The issue is whether those policy discussions go so far as to dictate
business models. Milton's point is that they don't. Mikki, myself and Tony
seem to agree on this. I would think that you would also. I'm not quite sure
where Marylin stands.

The point is, and I agree, that the non-profit vs. for-profit issue is a
canard... a non-issue... aka. a rat-hole.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of J.
> William Semich
> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 1999 6:26 AM
> To: Mikki Barry; wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-c] registry contracts
>
>
> I don't think ICANN has any "technical management" role. Its
> role is to set
> DNS policy - not technical standards.
>
> Bill Semich
>
> At 04:08 PM 11/13/99 -0500, you wrote
> >Why are we even bothering to discuss the business models of
> >independent corporations?  If ICANN is for "technical
> management" and
> >not "Internet governance" wouldn't that mean that a corporation's
> >business model is far outside the scope of ICANN to control or even
> >to suggest?  Should we not instead be focused on the technical
> >considerations and qualifications ONLY?
> >
> >
>