RE: [council] .ORG BC minority view
With respect to ex-post challenge. There will be some cost in administering
this (investigation, evaluation of competing claims, documentation of the
decision and, perhaps, some legal cost relating to unhappy parties). Have
you discussed where you think this cost should be best borne? The
challenger? If challengers are successful have you thought about whether
names should go directly to them, or back into the SRS?
I think the idea has merit by the way. I'm just wondering if you have views
on some of these details.
From: Grant Forsyth [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 7:37 PM
To: 'Philip Sheppard'; NC (list)
Subject: [council] .ORG BC minority view
Fellow Names Council members
At tomorrow's Names Council meeting, the Business Constituency intends to
support the endorsement of the report of the Task Force on the divestiture
of .org as consensus policy recommendations to the ICANN Board.
While we support the key policy objectives embodied in the report, the BC
has two remaining issues that we wish to communicate to the Board through
the inclusion of a minority view being appended to the report.
The BC would have the ICANN Board note that the BC:
1. Does support restricted access (applied in the least interventionist
manner by way of ex-post challenge) to future new registrations as a
practical means of defining the constituency of registrants. Similarly, the
"Sponsored" model of organization responsible for the domain would seem to
provide the best basis for meeting the wish of devolved policy development
inherent in the TF's report.
2. Urges the Board to increase competition and diversity and encourage
new investment in the provision of gTLD registry services, by ensuring the
market position of existing dominant providers are not entrenched nor
enhanced through participation in, taking an interest in, or contracting to
deliver critical services to, the new .org management organisation.
These views have been discussed within the Task Force and will be tabled at
the Names Council meeting as a "friendly amendment". The purpose of this
communication is to give notice of the BC's intent and also to alert other
constituencies to the possibility of adding their support to the BC minority
view, should you want to.
I look forward to joining you on the call
BC Names Council Representative and BC member on the .org Task Force