Re: [nc-org] Dot org
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, at 10:07 [=GMT+0100], Philip Sheppard wrote:
> Milton and the dot org TF,
> allow me to add my opinion (while Grant is travelling and may not
> be posting). I believe that Mike Roberts latest e-mail captures
> the BC position perfectly and would seem to be close to the TF
> consensus. (The published BC position I believe would defer to
> recent debate over restricted/unrestricted).
> As I understand it the TF wants:
> - dot org reassigned to a not for profit registry
That was rather an idea before everything started, of ICANN and
Verisign (alphabetical order), if I did not lose my memory completely.
> Louis asks to categorise it as either:
Why does the NC not simply do what is its right (and duty, I would
say) and discuss the TF report and vote without ukazes from _staff_
And let the board decide in an open bottom up way, or something?
Who is in charge? What are we afraid of? The Board saying "NO"?
Or if not, why do we not save our time and let Touton write NC task
force reports? I mean, I did not participate in this because I am
bored or something. I like to grow trees.
> (a) sponsored and restricted (like .museum) - with devolved ICANN policy-formulation ability
> (b) unsponsored and restricted (like .name or .biz) - no devolved policy
> (c) unsponsored and unrestricted (like .com or .info or .org today )- no devolved policy
> but not sponsored and unrestricted.