[nc-org] Re: Revised Statement of Policy
>>> Cary Karp <firstname.lastname@example.org> 08/29/01 01:30PM >>>
>Is this a direct question to me? If so, it's hardly my call.
Yes, Cary, it is your call and that of every other TF
member. That's why you are on the TF.
>I have no gripe with the substance of the proposal but do think that
>the likeliood of its attaining the desired effect would be enhanced
>by wording it in a manner more compliant with the way the TLD
>process is otherwise being described and conducted.
I think you have identified the chief disconnect between our
thinking. ICANN's current TLD process is about adding new TLDs.
But ORG is not a NEW TLD, and the purpose of this process
is NOT to create a new TLD, but to divest an existing TLD
from a registry, primarily for competition policy purposes.
Perhaps we should make that point one of our principles.
Based on your experience with .museum, I think I can understand why
you have been viewing things differently. But remember that
ORG has been around since 1984, has been open since 1996, and
currently has close to 3 million registrants. Those are facts/
constraints that simply cannot be ignored.
>I am not sure, though, on what credible basis our proposal can be
>put forth as a statement of TF consensus.
I agree there is none yet, that's why I am calling for public
comment. However, as a newcomer to the Names Council let
me advise you (as someone who has been on several TF's now)
that participation rates are low and often a lack of objection
is - and must be - taken as assent, if not support. On the UDRP
TF, as Caroline Chicoine will confirm, most of the dialogue was
between me and her.
>The initial formalities of
>our organization have yet to be dispatched and, unless I've missed
>some communications, we don't appear yet to have settled down to
>much in-depth discussion.
See above. But you are right, we are still missing GA and registrar
participation. I have taken steps to address that, but we need to
get something underway prior to Montevideo.