RE: [council] .ORG BC minority view
Thanks Ken, a good suggestion re the separation of the two issues that the
Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs
Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads
Private Bag 92143
ph +64 9 912 5759
fx + 64 9 912 4077
Mb 021 952 007
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, 17 January, 2002 2:22 p.m.
To: Grant Forsyth; 'Philip Sheppard'; NC (list)
Subject: Re: [council] .ORG BC minority view
fellow council members
1. frankly, i wish that this e-mail had been sent earlier so that the
members of the council could have had adequate time for consultation with
their constituancies. as it is currently , i believe that these issues are
best dealt with as a "sign on" on the minority view report by the various
2. it would be best to address each issue seperately in any minority view
comments to the board. there may very well be one issue that some
constituancy may endorse while not endorsing the other..(or vice versa)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Grant Forsyth" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "'Philip Sheppard'" <email@example.com>; "NC (list)"
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:36 PM
Subject: [council] .ORG BC minority view
> Fellow Names Council members
> At tomorrow's Names Council meeting, the Business Constituency intends to
> support the endorsement of the report of the Task Force on the divestiture
> of .org as consensus policy recommendations to the ICANN Board.
> While we support the key policy objectives embodied in the report, the BC
> has two remaining issues that we wish to communicate to the Board through
> the inclusion of a minority view being appended to the report.
> The BC would have the ICANN Board note that the BC:
> 1. Does support restricted access (applied in the least interventionist
> manner by way of ex-post challenge) to future new registrations as a
> practical means of defining the constituency of registrants. Similarly,
> "Sponsored" model of organization responsible for the domain would seem to
> provide the best basis for meeting the wish of devolved policy development
> inherent in the TF's report.
> 2. Urges the Board to increase competition and diversity and encourage
> new investment in the provision of gTLD registry services, by ensuring the
> market position of existing dominant providers are not entrenched nor
> enhanced through participation in, taking an interest in, or contracting
> deliver critical services to, the new .org management organisation.
> These views have been discussed within the Task Force and will be tabled
> the Names Council meeting as a "friendly amendment". The purpose of this
> communication is to give notice of the BC's intent and also to alert other
> constituencies to the possibility of adding their support to the BC
> view, should you want to.
> I look forward to joining you on the call
> Grant Forsyth
> BC Names Council Representative and BC member on the .org Task Force