Re: [nc-org] "Sponsored-unrestricted"
I think it does serve a purpose to discuss ex ante
and ex post. We need to make it explicit that we
oppose BOTH ex-ante and ex-post restrictions, because
some people might advocate ex-post restictions,
e.g., yet-another dispute initiation procedure, as a
way to avoid the costs and problems of ex-ante
Ex-post resitrctions, however, only leads to the
proliferation of dispute initiation rules. This is
very bad for users. It is unrealistic to expect domain
name registrants to be able to understand and track
the increasing number of specialized dispute
resolution policies associated with the growth
of sponsored domains.
On the issue of being more specific about governance
arrangements, you make a good point and I am open
to persuasion. But we need specific proposals, and
we need them fast.
>>> Marc Schneiders <firstname.lastname@example.org> 09/16/01 08:04 AM >>>
Then we should completely omit ex ante/post language to avoid giving people (wrong) ideas. The distinction
serves no purpose.
> This is why we need to come up and put in our report a
> clear idea of how the users/registrants (not-for-
> profits, individuals) are going to be represented. Who
> is going to (s)elect them? And how?
> MM: =====> I think that is for the bidders to
> propose. I think it too interventionist and
> controlling to tell them specific methods that must
> be employed for representation. We cannot anticipate
> all the possible methods that might be proposed.
Why? If we can propose the registration policy, why not the way in
which new org is governed? Do we not *need* to do that, since the way
in which it is ruled (e.g. marketing new org in a certain way as you
suggest), determines whther this policy will work? In any case we
could (and should, I think), include clear indications that the
bidders should tell how the org-registrants are going to be
represented on the board of new org. Otherwise we will open up all
sorts of possibilities to repeat the At large story on a smaller