Re: [nc-org] wrap up
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, at 08:49 [=GMT-0500], Ken Stubbs wrote:
> if we could incorporate into the document language insuring that the new
> mgt. company will not impose any onerous accreditation fees or "new
> financial barriers" and will honor the ICANN accredited status of the
> existing registrars this would be a very good start.
I think the new ORG cannot easily 'throw out' existing registrars,
since so many registrations are already paid for for many years
ahead. (See e.g. schneiders.org :-)
I do find it a bit too much to exclude completely that registrars are
excluded from future and new registrations, if and only if they
blatantly disregard the new marketing policy of new ORG. If this is
now excluded, then it means nothing, this marketing policy. Maybe the
apllicants can indicate how they are going to deal with this?
I do not think it should be easy to oust a registrar for new
registrations. But it should be possible.
> i also feel that it is essential that an acknowledgement be made that all
> parties recognize the need for registrar constituency input into this part
> of the transition process as we are significantly impacted by it.
This is clearly the case. I have no problems with acknowledging this.
> does anyone have any problems with these concepts and incorporating them .
> if you all don't then please incorporate at least the first paragraph into
> the document.
I have no problems with "the new mgt. company [although I would like
not to use this terminoloy] will not impose any onerous accreditation
fees or new financial barriers and will honor the ICANN accredited
status of the existing registrars", if we add "for existing
registrations and for new registrations as long as they do not
frustrate the marketing policy of new ORG".
What I mean is, in short: we cannot simply take away existing
registrations from registrars. It would be unfair, and pratically
nearly impossible. This should not, however, be an excuse why
registrars that do ORG now (which is all) can do whatever they like
and disregard the proposed new ORG marketing policy.
If I have things my way, new ORG will make very cheap domains
available. Not at $6 like Verisign, but lower. This may then induce
registrars to market these domains merely for their cheapness, as
their markup would be the same... This we do not want. I do not, I
> registrars can send in a note regarding the second paragraph
> to the council seperately but the language in the first paragraph is very
> important to our constituancy.
> ken stubbs
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milton Mueller" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 11:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [nc-org] wrap up
> OK, I MUST have something acceptable by tomorrow
> (Friday, Nov 30). Otherwise I have to forward
> the policy as is (v 4.2) to Council. --MM
> >>> "Ken Stubbs" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 11/28/01 18:28 PM >>>
> I will contact Guillermo tomorrow and see what we can do to help clarify
> this issue.