Re: [council] .ORG BC minority view
Can anyone explain how can ex-post challenge be done practically
with success? Is there any previous experience?
> With respect to ex-post challenge. There will be some cost in
> this (investigation, evaluation of competing claims, documentation of the
> decision and, perhaps, some legal cost relating to unhappy parties).
> you discussed where you think this cost should be best borne? The
> challenger? If challengers are successful have you thought about whether
> names should go directly to them, or back into the SRS?
> I think the idea has merit by the way. I'm just wondering if you have
> on some of these details.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Forsyth [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:37 PM
> To: 'Philip Sheppard'; NC (list)
> 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