Re: [nc-org] Re: Final (v. 3.2) ORG Policy Statement
i am good with this as well
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guillermo Carey C." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: [nc-org] Re: Final (v. 3.2) ORG Policy Statement
> I agree
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Cary Karp [mailto:email@example.com]
> Enviado el: Martes, 02 de Octubre de 2001 8:21
> Para: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Asunto: [nc-org] Re: Final (v. 3.2) ORG Policy Statement
> > Cary Karp wrote:
> > The notion of permitting third party complaint about the diligence
> > with which the SO is upholding its charter is entirely reasonable.
> > The purpose of the CEDRP is to provide such a mechanism.
> > MM ===>
> > Another thought on this: it would seem that such complaints
> > are not against the domain name registrant, but a registrar
> > who violates the marketing policy. Could this be a way to
> > square the unrestricted/marketing focus circle?
> "Should not adopt, or be required by ICANN to adopt, dispute
> initiation procedures that could result in the cancellation of
> domain delegations. If it can be implemented in adherence with this
> principle, the newly introduced CEDRP may be adapted to ensure SO
> and registrar diligence in the maintenance of domain policy. The
> UDRP would apply as per #4 below."