Re: RE: [nc-org] Revised draft - reflecting teleconference
Thanks Grant for clarifying the agreement. My
recollection is in line with yours.
However, the change that you suggest here:
>>> Grant Forsyth <firstname.lastname@example.org> 01/03/02 21:10 PM >>>
> Suggestion: So as to not introduce confusion and
> tension regarding existing .org registrants, lets
> just specify that the applicant need be a
> noncommercial/not for profit. => Strike
> out "....that is controlled by
> noncommercial .org registrants".
...is probably not acceptable to us. The reason is
that it is very easy for any commercial interest to
form "a" nonprofit organization and call it
We are deeply concerned, as I think B&C and IPCC are,
that the new delegee of .org be truly representative of
the broader noncommercial community and not just
"a" nonprofit. That distinction is not something to be
tossed aside lightly, as it affects the incentives of
the management and the acceptability of the deal.
More fundamentally, I don't think that we should
rush to make changes of this magnitude
simply because one member of the TF who didn't
quite understand the agreement correctly objects to
it. Let's find out more about WHY Ken wants this
change and how many other constituencies support it.
Then we can talk about making major changes like